The Leipzig debate in 1519 : leaves from the story of Luther's life

THE LEIPZIG DEBATE IN 15(9

W. H.T.DAU

(50rneU Hmoerattg Slibrary

Stljata, Jfem ^nrk

rRLOLrwtiy of-Miii

The date shows when tEis volume was taken.

To renew this book coijy the call No. and give to
the librarian.

2637 3

HOME USE RULES

All books subject to recall

- ^ ^ AU borrowers must regis-

••ni iy^^"^''^3^A^'^^^V'lilt{ *^^ ^" *^® library to borrow
"""^"^^ *-' i" books for home use.

year for inspection and
repairs.

Limited bboks must be

Students must return all
books before leaving town.
Officers should arrange for
the return of books wanted
during their absence from

town.

Volumes of periodicals

and of pamphlets are held

in the library as much as

possible. For si>ecial pur-
poses they are given out for
a limited time. -

Borrowers should not use

their library privileges for

the benefit of other persons.

Books of special value
and gift books, when the

giver wishes it, are not

allowed to circulate.

Readers are asked to re-
port all cases of books
marked or mutilated.

Do not deface books by marks and writing.

Cornell University Library
BR355.L5 D23

Leipzia debate in 1519 : leaves from the

olin

1924 029 232 372

The original of tliis book is in
tine Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029232372

THE LEIPZIG DEBATE
IN 1519.

-*-

LEAVES FROM THE STORY
OF LUTHER'S LIFE.

-*-

By W. H. T. DAU.

St. Louis, Mo.
concordii publishing house.

1»19.

PREFACE.

ah, the preface ! With Seidemann {Reforma-

tionszeit in Sachsen, p. I) one regrets that the preface was
ever invented. In former times, he says, books were given
an index at the end, just as gentlemen wore queues down
their back, and you could pretty nearly tell the character
of either by examining the final appendage. Nowadays
the quintessence, or basic decoction, of a book must be
deposited in the preface. That is the philosophy of the
matter, whether it is useful or not.

I may tell here what I meant this book to be. It is
in the form of a tale, but it is all history, down to the
minutiae of circumstance, and the evidence is given step
for step, ily aim has been, not only to tell what happened,
but let the reader see how it happened. Much local color-
ing, and much personal portrayal, and much of what is
human also in great men has been thrown into this review.
To make the reader see through the reopened records an
important event in the making, with all those paltry in-
cidents that contribute towards its happening and in the
end assume the force of causes, has been my aim. Since
the old Latin and German records have been Englished
for this review, either wholly, or in part, or in extensive
summaries, the book may in a measure, I hope, prove
itself valuable as a source book to those who would carry
their studies of this important epoch in Luther's life fur-
ther than has been done here.

The Luther of the Leipzig Debate is less popular than
the Luther with the hammer and the Theses in his hand,
standing in front of the Castle Church at "Wittenberg on

VI PBEFACE.

October 31, 1517, or the Luther of Worms facing the'
Emperor Charles V and the great lords from Eome in
a solemn and gorgeous assembly. Both events lend them-
selves easily to dramatization. Let us not reduce the
importance of either event. The former certainly did
start the movement which we call the Reformation; the
latter was the culminating confessional act, which fitly
closed the action begun in 1517. However, on the former
occasion Luther was to a large extent a searcher after
truth, and there was in him the timidity of the inquirer.
Forty months later he knew what he wanted to know, and
he also knew what he must do because he knew what he
knew. . The internal or spiritual growth of Luther during
those three years and a half is due to the Leipzig Debate
and the preparation for it. It was on that' occasion that
Luther began to clearly understand the issue before him,
and took up the gauntlet which Rome had thrown down
to him. Therefore July 4, 1519, and the following days
must be reckoned not only as an important day in the
personal story of Luther, but also as a truly great day in
the history of the Church of Jesus Christ.

As I have given my references throughout the book,
there is no need here of a bibliography. The labors of
all who have traveled these paths before me I have relig-
iously employed for my own work, as far as they were
available to' me. In the case of translations I have in
most instances compared the originals.

God bless the book and its readers !

W. H. T. Dau.

St. Louis, Mo., November 19, 1918.

CONTENTS.

PAGE

1. A Proposal of Friendship 1

2. May Frost on a Budding Friendship 10

3. Stabbing a Friend in the Back 17

4. The Daggers and the Stars 24

5. Alas ! Another Friend ! 31

6. The Challenge to a Debate 38

7. Duke George Has His Way 46

8. Striking at Andrew and Aiming at Martin 58

9. The Hand of God 68

10. Obstacles 75

11. Final Preparations for the Debate 87

12. The Thirteenth Thesis 104

13. Leyptzigk 110

14. Carlstadt versus Eck 116

15. A Memorable Fourth of July. (Forenoon.) 129

16. A Memorable Fourth of July. (Afternoon.) 145

17. A Memorable Fourth of July. (Evening.) 157

18. The Remainder of the Debate on the Primacy 164

19. The Debate on Purgatory 174

20. The Debate on Indulgences 178

21. The Debate on Repentance 181

22. The Debate on Priestly Absolution and Satisfactions for

Sin 184

23. The Conclusion of the Debate 188

24. Reports about the Debate 194

25. Exit Dr. Eck 204

26. Hail, Doctor Martinus ! 208

Appejjdix : —

I. Theses against the Scholastic Theology 213

II. Theses for Luther's Debate at Heidelberg, April 26,

1518 ...218

III. Summary of Eck's Obelisks and Luther's Asterisks 221

Index 233

1. A Proposal of Friendship.

In the early part of April, 1517, Luther received a letter
from ]S"uernberg. It came from his former colleague at
Wittenberg, Christophorus Scheurl, Doctor of Jurisprudence,
who had left his honorable position at the young university
on the Elbe to become City Counselor of ISTuernberg, "the
jewel casket of the Holy Roman Empire of the German
Nation." Scheurl had written this letter to Luther in ful-
filment of a promise which he had made to a guest whom he
was at that time entertaining at his house. However, by
writing this letter, Scheurl had also gratified a personal de-
sire : from what he had to propose to Luther he believed that
good would result to the Church, if Luther chose to act upon
his suggestion. This same suggestion he had made to his
guest months before. On January 14 he had written him : —

Among the Wittenberg theologians there are eminent Martin
Luther, an Augustinian, who is expounding the Pauline Epistles
with wonderful geniality; Andreas Carlstadt, Nicolaus Amsdorf,
Johannes Feldkirehen, and several others. If you wish to enter
into familiar relations with these men, let me' tell you thafol can
bring that about, if anybody can.l)

Xow that he had this person at his home, he increased
his efl^orts to bring about a friendly relationship between his
guest and the young Doctor of Theology whom he had left
at Wittenberg.

When the guest had heard Scheurl extol the noble quali-
ties of Luther, he had manifested a great desire to become
personally acquainted with him, and, with that end in view,
had at once dispatched a letter to Luther, which he accom-
panied with a brochure that he had just published. Scheurl's
letter was written for the purpose of securing a favorable
consideration for his guest's offer of friendship. With the

1) Enders, Luthera Briefwechsel I, 93.

DAO, LEIPZIG DEBATE.

2 1. A PKOrOSAL OF FRIENDSHIP.

scholarly courtesy of the Humanist that he was, Scheurl
wrote : —

I have no doubt that you will answer him, and release me
from my promise. For you consider it a disgrace to let any one
exceed you in love or surpass you in kindness. I pray, however,
that you will write him in a friendly manner, because I deem
him worthy of your friendship.3)

At the same time Scheurl wrote letters of the same im-
port to Carlstadt, Luther's colleague at the university of
Wittenberg, and to Spalatin, Luther's most trusted friend.^)
Scheurl's solicitousness indicates that he attached consider-
able importance to a possible union between his former asso-
ciates and his present guest.

Who was this guest? His name was Johann Maier, or
Mayr, of Eck on the Guenz, in the district of Ottobeuren in
Suabia, where he had been born November 13, 1486. At the
time of which we are wr,iting he was thirty years old and
Luther's junior by three years. Johann Maier of Eck had
indeed had a remarkable career. Born of a respectable
family, — his father, Michael Maier, was for many years the
magistrate of the town, — he had at the age of nine (March,
1495) been received into the home of his uncle and name-
sake, Johann Maier, the pastor of a congregation at Eotten-
burg on the Neckar. Por three years his uncle superintended
and supplemented the poor education which his nephew re-
ceived at the school of the place. The boy, however, developed
so rapidly ^) that his uncle decided to send him to Heidelberg,

2) St. Louis Ed. of Luther's Works, XXIa, 65. — This edition will
be quoted throughout this treatise by giving merely volume and column.

3) Enders, I. c.

4) Eck, later in life, gave an account of liis education at Rotten-
burg. At school he learned his Latin from Paul Niave's Idioma Lati-
num and Cato, and finished Virgil's Bucolics, Theodul, and the sixth
treatise of Isidore. Besides, he read Aesop's Fables, the Comedies of
Aretin, the Elegies of Alda, Seneca's On the Virtues and the Epistle
to Lucilius, the Letters af Gasparin, Gerson's Josephinus, an Intro-
duction to the Bible, Boethius's On Discipline and On the Consolation
of Philosophy, the entire Terence, the first six books of the Aeneid,
and was drilled in Isidore's five chapters on Logic. In the afternoon
his uncle read with him the Books of Moses, the Four Gospels, Acts,
treatises on the I'our Last Things, on Souls, a part of Augustine's
Orations to the Erenuites. the treatise of Augustine of Ancona on the

1. A PHOPOSAI. OF FKIENDSHIP. 3

where Johann Maier, iii April, 1498, entered the university at
the tender age of twelve years. In accordance with a pre-
vailing custom the young student Latinized his name, calling
himself after his birthplace Eccius, or Eck (rarely after his
uncl^, Johannes llajoris).^) This precocious freshman be-
came the Dr. Eck who figures prominently in the story of
the Lutheran Reformation.

For reasons that have not been explained to us, Eck soon
left Heidelberg, the oldest of the German universities, and
in the spring of 1499 entered the University of Tuebingen.
In six months he advanced to the degree of Bachelor of Arts
(October, 1499), while fifteen months later (January, 1501)
he became Master of Arts. He now took up the study of
theology. His lading teacher was Johann Jacob Lemp.
This is the learned doctor of whom Melanchthon, who studied
at this university a few years later, has related that he would
graphically demonstrate to his classes the doctrine of tran-
substantiation by crayon drawings on the blackboard.^) An-
other prominent teacher was Konrad Summenhardt, who
taught Eck the rudiments of Hebrew, and incidentally in-
stilled in him his peculiar views on social economy. The
theology which Eck learned of these men is strongly reflected
in his own writings at a later day. Paul Scriptoris, "the
quiet reformer before the Reformation," ') seems to have had
only .a passing influence on Eck.

In the fall of 1501 the pest began to rage in Suabia, and
yielding to the anxious concern of his tmcle, Eck in October

Authority of the Church, an Introduction to Jurisprudence, and four
books of the Decretals with the Glosses. He learned by heart the Law
Rules of Panormitanus, in alphabetical order. His uncle's assistants
expounded to him the Four Gospels, Cicero's treatise On Friendship,
Basil's Introduction to Study, and Homer's account of the Trojan War.
On his own initiative he read the entire History of Lomiard, the
Shield of Faith, and many Latin and German books, "although these
studies were not flourishing at that time in Germany." (Wiedemann,
Dr. Joh. Eck, p. 4 f.) This modest account draws from Hausrath
(Luthers Leien, I, 195) the remark that Eck's uncle must have been
raising a prodigy (Wunderkind) in his quiet parsonage.

5) Hausrath (I. c.) suggests that in assuming his new name, Eck
was imitating such noble personages as the Bavarian Chancellor, Leon-
hard von Eck, and the Fiscal of Treves, .Tohann von der Ecken.

6) Corp. Ref. IV, 718. 7) PRE^ V, 138.

4 1. A PROPOSAL OF FKIENDSHIP.

transferred himself to Cologne. Here he heard the Thomist
Theodoric von Guenatern and Arnold von Tungern, vpho,
a decade later, was one of the inquisitorial judges that con-
demned Eeuchlin for defending the study of Hebrew with
the aid of the Talmud. At Cologne, Eck's talent for oratory
and his skill in debate were first noticed, and Eck was eager
to cultivate these qualities by engaging in many a dialectic
tilt with his fellow-students. But the pest again caused him
to change his residence : in June, 1502, he went to Ereiburg
in the Breisgau, where he continued his major studies,
theology and jurisprudence, at the same time crowding his
schedule with a variety of other studies. His principal
teachers at this university were Georg ISTothofer, Ulrich Za-
sius, the humanistic jurist, and Gregor Reysch, the encyclo-
pedist.

Another of the unexplained happenings in Eck's life oc-
curred during his residence in Ereiburg: his uncle withdrew
from him the yearly allowance by means of which Eck had
supported himself at the universities, and Eck was forced to
earn his livelihood by teaching. He taught with considerable
success, especially after he had received (in 1505) the appoint-
ment of rector of the Artistenhurse zum, Pfau, that is, after
he had become principal of the hall for students of art.
Students from other "Bursen" were attracted to his.^) Nor
did he neglect his exercises in oratory and debate, but rather
engaged with greater zest than ever in the regular and
extraordinary disputations which formed part of the cur-
riculum of students in those days. On various occasions, at
church festivals, at academic functions, Eck came forward
as a brilliant and accomplished speaker,^) but he also became
known as an extremely abusive debater.

Eck's theological curriculum was completed at Ereiburg,
as follows: he became Bachelor of Theology in 1505, Sen-

8) "By the multitude of bis accomplisliments he sought even at
this time to impress men ; for he often delivered six lectures in a day."
(Hausrath, I. c.)

9) Wiedemann (p. 448 ff.) has facsimiles of the title pages of many
of these early productions of Eck.

1. A PROPOSAL OF FBIENDSriIP. 5

tentiarius, that is, lecturer on the dogmatics of Peter Lom-
bard, in 1506, Licentiate of Theology in 1509, and obtained
the title of Doctor of Theology in 1510, at the age of twenty-
four. Two years prior to this (December 13, 1508) he had
been ordained priest at Strassburg, a special dispensation
having been obtained for him from the Pope because he was
below the canonical age.

At Freiburg Eck published his first literary product,
Ludicra Logices Exercitamenta, that is, Laughable Exer-
cises in Logic.

His unfairness, his ungenerous treatment of an opponent,
and his abusive style of speaking in debate had caused very
unpleasant relations to spring up between Eck and his col-
leagues, and this circumstance induced him to apply for
a vacant chair of theology at the University of Ingolstadt.
Upon the urgent recommendation of Peutinger to the Dukes
of Bavaria he was called to this position in November, 1510.

Eck's ability was soon recognized at Ingolstadt; for in
two years he rose, first, to the dignity of rector (1511), next,
to that of pro-chancellor of the university (1512). He re-
mained with this school to the end of his life, and his
Catholic reviewers are undoubtedly right when they give as
the reason why in the age of the Eeformation this great
school of Germany was saved to the Catholic Church the
complete domination which Eck had secured over it.l")

A remarkable literary activity from now on to the end
of his theological career of thirty-two years marks the prog-
ress of Dr. Eck. He began to show his learning in the most
diverse departments of learning. "He engaged in geograph-
ical research and published a series of philosophical works,
some of which were to serve as text-books in the faculty of
arts at Ingolstadt. In these writings he attempts to com-
bine in a rational synthesis the advantages of the older

10) "Schroedl, in Wetzer una Welte, says that Eck gave it that
robust Catholic tendency by which it became a firm citadel of faith in
Germany and a wholesome antidote against the Protestant acade-
mies. ( ! )" (PEE 2 V, 138.)

6 1. A PEOPOSAL OF FRIENDSHIP.

philosophy with those of the new." H) This means that Eck,
while adhering in principle to the old scholastic views and
methods of the intellectual leaders of the Church, sought
to polish his writings with the new progressive views of the
modernism of that age, the humanistic learning, at least
whenever he could do so without incurring the suspicion
that he had actually become a Humanist. He never went
over completely to the camp of the Humanists.

His principal theological work during this early period
Eck inscribed Ohrysopassus. This title was borrowed from
Eev. 21, 20, where the tenth of the precious stones in the
foundation of the heavenly Jerusalem is called a "chryso-
prasus." Eck certainly thought very highly of his virgin
effort in theology. The treatise develops the doctrine of
predestination from Semi-Pelagian premises. Eck's later
Catholic reviewers think that the treatise prophetically fore-
shadowed the author's part in the struggle that was soon to
come upon the Church; for the dogmas of divine grace and
human free will which Eck discussed in the' Ohrysopassus
became the battle-ground between Luther and Rome.l2) Be-
sides this treatise Eck wrote commentaries on the Summulae
of Petrus Hispanus and the treatises of Aristotle On Heaven
and On the Soul, by which he endeavored to create the im-
pression that he was in harmony with the new learning of
his time.

A deplorable trait in Eck's character — doubly deplorable
because it was seen in a theologian, and that, such a young
theologian — cropped out when he ventured upon the terri-
tory of social economy. It was Eck's avarice. We noted
the impulse which Eck had received in this direction from

11) J. P. Kirsch, in Cath. Encycl. V, 272. Thig writer cites the fol-
lowing monograplis on the non-theological activities of Eclj : Gueuther,
Jon. Eck als Oeograph, In Forschungen z. Kultur- u. lAteratiirgesch.
Bayerns (Munich, 1894), II, 140 — 162; Bauch, Die Anfaenge des
Humanismus in Ingolstadt (Munich, 1901) ; Greving, JoTi. Eck als
junger Oelehrter, in Reformationsgeschichtl. Studien u. Texte (Munich
1906), I.

12) The Ohrysopassus and other books of Eck were burned by the
students of Wittenberg at the Bister Gate on December 10, 1520.
(Grisar, Luther, II, 51.)

1. A PROPOSAL OF FRIENDSHIP. 7

Prof. Summenhardt at Tuebingen. By making extensive use
of the treatise of his former teacher, Tractaius Bipartitus
de Decimis (A Treatise in Two Parts on Tithes), Eck pre-
pared a series of theses in which he defended the charging
of five per cent, interest on loans. This seems a moderate
rate, but we must bear in mind that in that age the canon
law forbade all usury, that is, all taking of interest, for that
was called usury; and for ages the civil law had enforced
the ecclesiastical. Usury meant, "not the taking of excessive
interest alone, but the taking of any interest.'' The age had
begun to fight capitalism, which engaged in the "lending of
money in business, with a prospect, almost a certainty, of
profit. Usury had formerly been an exaction of that for
which the borrower had received no real equivalent, from
which at any rate he had derived no profit; it was now
a sharing of profits between borrower and lender." 13) This
was an entirely new conception, and for his attempt to de-
fend it Eck was promptly charged with "Fuggerism'' ; for
it was believed that he had yielded to golden inducements of
the well-knovsm bankers of emperors and popes, the Fuggers
of Augsburg, when he launched his defense of their usurious
practises.. Eck published his theses on the five per cent,
interest rate in October, 1514, and intended to discuss them
publicly at his university. But the Bishop of Eichstaett,
Gabriel von Eyb, who was the chancellor of the university,
refused his consent, and Eck had to desist. However, in
1515 he went to Bologna, where he defended his theses, but
found few men agreeing with him. His attempt to repeat
his disputation at Vienna in 1517 was a complete failure.
In spite of his incessant begging for permission he was not
allowed to speak on his pet theme. Only a few minor theo-
logical questions he was permitted to discuss. Estimate,
now, the abnormal conceit of the man when you behold him
coming back from Vienna, boasting that he had achieved
"a victory." He set to work to publish his theses with the
exposition he had given them, and with an account of the

13) Vedder, The Reformation in Qermany, p. XXXV.

8 1. A PBOPOSAL OF FEIENDSHIP.

proceedings at Bologna and Vienna. It was this treatise
that he sent to Luther with his request for Luther's friend-
ship.!*) Pirckheimer, the wealthy and cultured protector of
the Humanists in Germany, after receiving this treatise of
Eck, wrote a satirical review of it which he entitled Eccius
Dedolatus (Eck Planed Down). He cites Eck's own com-
ment on his ''success'' at Vienna :

I arrived at Vienna, in Pannonia, and there left a singular
proof of my genius and learning; for I overcame all Ijy shouting,
and showed that all the Viennese lacked literary training and
erudition. 15)

For this Eck included Pirckheimer in the bull of excom-
munication which he published against Luther in 1520.1'^)
Bernard Adelmann of Augsburg always referred to Eck as
"the garrulous sophist." 1'')

His nerves still tingling with the glowing feeling of his
imaginary triumph, and greedy of greater honors, Eck im-
mediately after his return from Vienna, in a spirit of pure
combativeness, picked a quarrel with his former teacher at
Freiburg, Ulrich Zasius. Not satisfied with this, he even
bumped into the aclaiowledged literary king of the age, Eras-
mus, who had just issued his Greek New Testament. Eck
wrote Annotationes in Novum Testamentum (Notes on the
New Testament), in which he assumed the role of champion
of orthodoxy over and against Erasmus, because the latter
had said that the Greek of the New Testament was not as
good as that of Demosthenes.l^)

This was the man whom Scheurl proposed to Luther for

a friend. Scheurl thought that he saw in Eck a "gleich-

■ strebenden Geist," a person of kindred aspirations with Lu-

ther.lS) He had not discovered the character of Eck; his

14) The title of the brochure which had been published at Augs-
burg February 1 was : Disputatio Joan. Eckii Theologi Viennae Pan-
noniae haWta. On fol. 15 S. he had added his disputation at Bologna.
(Enders, I. c. ; Presei-ved Smith, Luther's Correspondence I, 57.) Wiede-
mann, I. c, p. 447, has a photograph of the title page of this brochure.

15) PRE2 V, 139. 16) Grisar, II, .39.

17) Wiedemann, p. 35. 18) Preserved Smith, I. ,-., p. 58.

19) PRE», I. u.

1. A PKOPOSAL OF FBIENDSHIP. 9

intention was sincere, but his judgment was at fault. How-
ever, it is also possible that Scheurl had not read the char-
acter of Luther correctly; for Scheurl's friendship with Lu-
ther was terminated in 1523, after which time Scheurl sides
with Eck against Luther, and is eager to make his peace' with
Eome.20)

We are now looking back upon the completed drama of
the Eeformation. We are apt to muse how much differently
the story of the Reformation would have to be written to-day
if Scheurl's wish had been realized. In that case it is likely
that Albertine Saxony, with the University of Leipzig, would
have joined the Reformation movement much sooner than it
did, and Luther would have been spared the pain of having
to issue a number of impleasant writings. It is likely that
Protestant influence in Southern Germany, guided from the
University of Ingolstadt, would have materially changed the
course of events at Worms in 1521. It is likely that at Augs-
burg in 1530, at Worms in 1540, at Ratisbon in 1541 the
Lutheran cause would have had an able champion more in-
stead of a sinister opponent. It is likely — well, let us dis-
miss dreams. Man proposes ; God disposes. Even our friend-
ships are subject to His revision. So be it.^i)

20) Preserved Smith, I.e., 51.

21) Wiedemann, Eck's Roman biographer (p. 83), curiously mis-
understands a remark of Eck in a letter to tlie abbot Gallus, and claims
that Eck was in correspondence with Luther before Scheurl suggested
the establishment of a friendship between the two men. By misconnect-
ing the phrase "ex commendatione," etc., with "vidisset" instead of
"traxisse," Wiedemann translates : Before I had seen Luther on the
recommendation of Scheurl, I had entered into friendly relations with
him. It should read : I had not seen Luther before I entered into
friendly relations with him on the recommendation of Scheurl. Eck
wrote the letter to which we have referred in the beginning of this
chapter from Scheurl's home. His conduct would certainly be queer
if he had allowed Scheurl to secure for him a friendship that was
already established. By the way, on the preceding page Wiedemann
has quoted a remark of Eck which makes him say the very opposite of
what Wiedemann has imagined in this place.

10 2. MAT FROST ON A BUDDING FEIENDSHIP.

2, May Frost on a Budding Friendship.

The early corfespondenee of Luther that has come down
to us is fragmentary. Among the letters that still remain
unrecovered are the letter of Eck to Luther to which we have
referred, and Luther's answer to the same.22) But we have
evidence that Luther entered into the friendly scheme of
Scheurl. The Nuernberg counselor had dated his letter to
Luther April 1 ; Luther replies to him under date of May 6 :

As regards your admonition to write our Eck in a friendly
manner, I have done this with the greatest care possible. Whether
the letter has reached its destination I do not know .23)

At that time, then, Luther had received no reply from.
Eck. But observe Luther's expedition: scarcely five weeks
had elapsed between Scheurl's request and Luther's com-
pliance.' Considering the postal facilities of those times, we
should call that rapid correspondence. Luther was very
willing to make a friend of Eck, if he could. In fact, Luther
had by this time received Eck into his friendship merely on
the recommendation of Scheurl, for he calls him "our Eck,"
and that meant, in the parlance of the day, "our friend Eck."

We have a letter of Luther to Scheurl, dated Septem-
ber 11, in which Luther refers to theses which he is sending
to Scheurl, with this request : —

Thesif theses you may submit to our friend Eck, the very
learned and acecomplished man, in order that I may hear and see
what he has to say about them.24)

Erom this language and the nature of the suggestion we
infer that a certain degree of intimacy must have sprung up
between Luther and Eck during the four months which had
passed since Eck made his overtures to Luther. In a letter
dated September 30, Scheurl acknowledges the receipt of the
theses, and promises to forward them to Eck.25) On Novem-
ber 3 he informs Luther that the theses have been read with
approval by the dean of Eichstaett, Erhard Truchsess, and
by the Prior of Eebdorf, Kilian Klein.26) In sending the

22) Enders, 1. c, I, 98. 23) XXI a, 68.

24) XXIa, 74. 25) XXIa, 76. 26) XXIa, 77.

2. MAT FROST ON A BUDDING FRIENDSHIP. H

theses to these places in the immediate neighborhood of
Ingolstadt, and to Eck's immediate associates, Scheurl's in-
tention was to obtain the joint opinion of all these men. In
his letter to Eck he reiterated Luther's wish and joined his
own with it : —

With Luther I desire to be informed what you think of these
theses.27)

There is some anxiety manifested in these repeated and
urgent requests for an opinion. The nature of the theses ex-
plains this anxiety : the theses in question represent one of
the earliest efforts of Luther to break down the tyranny of
the scholastic theology, that is, of the pagan philosophy of
Aristotle as applied to theology. The theses are a clear call
to the theologians of the age to break with the untenable
principles of a misguided past.

What do we mean by scholasticism and scholastic the-
ology? These terms are used to designate the form which
the teaching of the Church had assumed after the great
teachers of the earlier centuries had passed away and theo-
logical learning was fostered chiefly by great schools, uni-
versities. The prominent teachers of theology were usually
attached to some school, and hence came to be called scho-
lastics, or schoolmen. The dogmas that had received the
sanction of the Church had crystallized in creedal statements,
and were accepted and taught on the authority of the Church.
The labor of the schoolmen consisted in organizing the dog-
mas into some system and in harmonizing them. "The scho-
lastic theologians were therefore not patres, generators of
dogmas, but only doctores, teachers and defenders; and they
were not doctores in general, but only doctores ecclesiae.
They taught not merely in the Church, but for the Church
and in defense of the Church. Their central task was to
conciliate, or at least to cast a bridge over the gulf which
lies between, faith and knowledge. The instrument which
they used chiefly was formal logic — syllogistic argumenta-
tion." Scholastic theology, in search after the primary source

27) Bnders, I. c, I, 110.

12 2. MAY FBOST ON A BUDDING FKIENDSHIP.

of religious knowledge, thought it had found that source in
the reason and the moral sense of man. The Church would
have it so; that was the great pity and the shame of it.

The age of scholastic theology opens with Anselm of
Canterbury (f 1109). To him is ascribed the first distinct
recognition and efficient application of the central principle
of scholastic theology: "the unquestioned acceptance of the
traditionally and officially sanctioned body of orthodox doc-
trine, and the earnest defense of the same hy all the re-
sources of logic, and r-eason." Anselm chafed under the
charge that theology is a blind and irrational babbling of
certain beliefs after some renowned teacher or the decision
of some famous church council. He wanted to show that
reason has very much to do in theology, provided only it does
not become haughty and self-confident. He found it difficult,
however, to confine this unruly and presumptuous reason
within due bounds. Though striving against rationalism,
Anselm himself uttered rationalistic principles and senti-
ments, sometimes going so far "as to claim that "reason can
of itself demonstrate the absolute necessity of each and
every dogma of the whole faith of the Church."

After Anselm two tendencies may be observed among the
schoolmen: one bold and aggressive, striving to get away as
much as possible from the authority of the Church and its
dogmas, though still deferring ostensibly to that authority;
the other, striving to hold on to the traditional faith, and at
the same time coquetting with reason. The representative of
the former tendency was Abelard (f 1142) ; of the latter, Ber-
nard of Clairvaux (f 1153). The latter tendency triumphed,
chiefly through the labors of the school of the St. Victors
(Hugo St.Victor, tll40; his pupil, Kobert St.Victor, J-117S'),
which injected a certain contemplative or mystic element into
the search after the primary source of knowledge in theology.
"According to Eobert St. Victor there are six kinds of con-
templation. 'We know 1. by the imagination (the sensible
impressions made by creation) ; 2. by reason (perception of
law and order in creation) ; 3. in reason according to imagi-
nation (symbolical knowledge of nature as a mirror of the

2. MAY FROST ON A BUDDING FRIENDSHIP. 13

spiritual) ; 4. in reason and according to reason (the internal
referred to the internal without a sensible image) ; 5. above
and not against reason (rational knowledge carried to a higher
stage by revelation); 6. above and (apparently) against rea-
son (as, e.g., the mystery of the Trinity).'"

Contemplation, however, seemed too much like labor to
the race of churchmen that was now arising. These men
were becoming pronouncedly materialistic and sensual. They
preferred their theological diet in the canned and predigested
form. Accordingly, for their convenience chiefly, however,
also for the sake of displaying the logical acumen of their
authors, collections of the dogmatic deliverances of the lead-
ing teachers of the Church were made, which were called
summae sententiarum. Summaries of Definitions. A modest
author would occasionally call his collection summulae. Little
Summaries. On these summaries the theological lecturers
used to comment and were called sententiarii. "All intel-
lectual acumen was concentrated upon the logical defense of
the formal orthodoxy of the official Church." The leader
among the theologians of this age (Magister sententiarum)
became Peter Lombard (f 1164). His treatise Sententiarum
Libri Quattuor became the indispensable text-book in all
theological schools, and students took their second academic
degree when they were admitted to the privilege of lecturing
on the Sententiae of the Lombard.

In 1204 occurred the fall of Constantinople. One of the
effects of this, event was that the wrritings of Aristotle were
made accessible to the West. The trained intellects in the
Western Church fell with avidity upon the philosophy of
this cultured pagan', in whom human reason has scored its
greatest triumphs. All the fundamental questions which the
schoolmen had for a hundred years debated without the aid
of Aristotle were taken up with a new zest, and the authority
of the great thinker of classical antiquity was invoked to
prove the correctness or incorrectness of a position in the-
ology. "The explanation of Aristotle's great influence on
the medieval Church is not far to seek. It is accounted for
by the fact that he was and is and always is to be the great

14 2. MAT FROST ON A BUDDINO FBIENDSHIP.

expounder of the laws of thought. It has been more than
two thousand years since he wrote,^^) and no essential point
in this teaching has been impeached, and no really fruitful
addition to his work has been made. Now it is one of the
constantly recurring illusions of men that, if they only had
the right method of reasoning and investigation, they might
ascertain and demonstrate all truth. Aristotle was supposed
to have furnished that method. By analysis and synthesis,
by induction and deduction, by the magic power of the syl-
logism, all things were to be revealed." 29) The commentators
on the Sentences of the Lombard now enriched their disser-
tations with copious references to a writer who had never
heard of Christ, had not read a word of the Bible, and was
altogether outside of the pale of the Christian Church. Chief
among them were Alexander Hales (t 1274), Duns Scotus
(t 1308), Occam (f 1347). The line of scholastic theologians
is generally regarded as closed with the death of Gabriel Biel
in 1495,3") -when Luther was getting ready to quit the parish
school at Mansfeld and go to Magdeburg.

Already by his theological studies at the cloister in Er-
furt, and still more after his election to a professorship at
the University of "Wittenbergj Luther had become thoroughly
familiar with the scholastic theology and its profane master
Aristotle. He knew every variety of this theology, and coiild
with ease' cite the views of the principal scholastics. In pro-
portion, however, as Luther became acquainted with the Scrip-
tures, he became greatly disturbed in mind lOver the undis-
puted authority which Aristotle was seen to exercise upon the
teachers of the Church. His disquietude turned to indigna-
tion when he noticed that Aristotle was practically venerated
ds a god and his teachings were accepted blindly, while the
teaching of God's Word was practically regarded as worthless.
His Christian conscience felt this as an abomination, and it
would not suffer him to remain silent long. "If the Gospel

28) Aristotle, the pupil of Plato and teacher of Alexander the
Great, lived 384—322 B. C.

29) Vedder, I. c, p. 16.

30) McCUntoclc and Strong Cycl., passim.

2, MAY FKOST ON A BUDDING FRIENDSHIP. 15

was to achieve a thorough success, Aristotle must be over-
thrown." (Walch.)

As early as February 8, 151G, Luther had voiced his in-
dignation with the force of a personal grievance in a letter
to his friend Johann Lang at the University of Erfurt. He
declared that he was "full of blasphemies and curses against
Aristotle and Porphyry and the sententiaries" ; he calls Aris-
totle "that actor who, in his Greek mask, has deceived the
Church," and goes so far as to say: "If Aristotle had not
been in the flesh, I would not hesitate to say that he was the
devil." 31)

Luther felt that to truly perform the functions of a theo-
logian he must come to an understanding with the church-
men of his age as regards fundamentals. By what standards
must the theologian determine truth and. error? By the
Sentences of the schoolmen? But what if these authorities
contradict Scripture? Then it became the plain duty of the
theologian to overthrow the authority of the accepted stand-
ards in theology. Accordingly, a resolution was passed at
Wittenberg on August 21, 1517, to arrange for a public dis-
cussion of the philosophy of Aristotle. Luther drew up
a series of theses for the occasion, and sent them to his
friend Lang at Erfurt with the offer that he would come to
Erfurt and maintain the theses in debate with the professors
of the university. The Erfurt theologians had grown gray
teaching scholastic theology; they were shocked at the bold-
ness of Luther's theses. They declared Luther forward, reck-
less, high-minded, and altogether too ready to condemn the
opinions of other men. They refused to debate with Luther.
But at "Wittenberg the theses were received with great satis-
faction, and a public discussion of them took place on Sep-
tember 4, when Pranz Guenther of Nordhausen came before
the theological faculty to defend the theses for his degree of
Bachelor of Theology. Luther presided at the discussion,
aftd the young applicant for academic honors acquitted him-

31) De Wette, Luthers Brief e, I, 15 ; Tedder, I. v., p. 15 1.

16 2. MAY FROST ON A BUDDING FRIENDSHIP.

self SO well that he was awarded his diploma uno consensu
dominorum, with the unanimous approval of his teachers.
The theses afford an insight into that theology which was
to become dominant at Wittenberg. For this reason we have
reproduced them entire in an appendix at the end of this
book. Certain details in these theses are not easily intelligible
to the modern reader who is not conversant with the medieval
literature against which they are directed. But everybody
understands readily that in these theses there is a vigorous
insistence on such fundamental Christian truths as these:
Man is by nature corrupt and incapable of fulfilling the Law
of God; only the grace of God can help him out of his
misery; this grace is mediated through Christ and offered
in the Word of His grace. This grace it is that makes theo-
logians, rather than reason, even when exercised with con-
summate skill and aided by the greatest masters of logic.
The polemical remarks at the end of the theses indicate
against which particular representative of the prevalent
teaching the thesis is aimed. The authors named were all
acknowledged authorities of the Church. Above all, Aris-
totle the pagan was the theological oracle of medieval scho-
lasticism.32)

On the^e theses Eck remained discreetly silent. We have
no evidence that he ever expressed the opinion which had been
so urgently solicited both by Luther and Scheurl. But his
subsequent conduct showed that he was fundamentally op-
posed to Luther's theses. Out of these theses there had
descended upon the habitual beliefs of Eck, which had grown
and thriven on Italian soil in southern sunshine, a cold
northern blast. His Wittenberg friend was proposing to him
that as theologians they should henceforth live in another
than the accustomed atmosphere. The pure breath of truth
chilled Eck's infant affection for Luther, and his budding
friendship was nipped. He was not inclined to approve Lu-

32) Plltt (lAfe of Luther, p. 69) calls this disputation "a decisive
blow struck at medieval doctrine."

3. STABBING A FBIEXD IN THE BACK. 17

tiler's position, and it did not seem prudent to disapprove it.

His silence is very expressive.

Silence! Oh, well are Death and Sleep and thou
Three brothers named, the guardians, gloomy-winged.
Of one abyss, where life and truth and joy
Are swallowed up. Shelley.

Hausrath has seen in Eck at this period the cunning
dissembler. "The great Humanists Brant, Geiler, Peutinger,
Eeuchlin, "Wimpheling, Zasius, are his patrons at this time,
and he overwhelms them with letters breathing his venera-
tion for them. However, he had at the same time maintained
relations with the obscurantists in the Church, which proved
very useful to him. This was revealed when in his twenty-
fourth year he was called as professor to Ingolstadt, which
still was under the influence of scholasticism. This did not
prevent him, however, from keeping up a friendship with
a Htmianist like Scheurl at Nuernberg, nor from offering,
in 1517, his friendship to Luther, of whose opposition to
Aristotle and the scholastics he must even then have known.
Luther, however, had to blame himself because in his free-
dom from suspicion he had accepted as genuine the assur-
ances of friendship of this aspirant, who was casting his
lines now to the right, now to the left." 33)

3. Stabbing a Friend in the Back.

We have traced Eck's relation to Luther to a point within
■one month of an event which was destined to shake all
Europe. On October 31 Luther published his theses against
the traffic of indulgences. Luther attached only local im-
portance to the Theses : they were to serve as a basis for
a public discussion at Wittenberg, and he made no effort
to spread them. His friend Scheurl had to upbraid him for
not sending him the Theses.34) In the eyes of thoughtful
men, however, the ISTinety-five Theses assumed a very great

3.3) I.e., I, 195. 34) XXIa, 90.

DAU, LEIPZIG DEBATE.

18 3. STABBING A FEIEND IN THE BACK.

importance tlie more they studied and pondered them. When
the Theses were published in convenient prints at N'uem-
berg, both in the original Latin and in a German translation
by ]Sruetzel,35) every prominent person in Germany was dis-
cussing the Theses with his neighbors and associates', and
endeavoring not only to grasp their exact meaning, but, still
more, to determine their bearing on the practical life of the
Church and the autocratic rule that had been set up in the
Church. Very many people saw at once what Luther had
failed to foresee, viz., that the Theses were a challenge to the
Papacy, and sooner or later must involve Luther in a conflict
with the rulers of the Church. Men were taking sides for
or against Luther. The majority of the influential men in
Germany, in particular all who permitted their judgment to
be swayed by their temporal interests, soon voiced their dis-
sent from the views which Luther had published.

Eck was among the first to become interested in Luther's
Theses. It is quite likely that his friend Scheurl sent them
to him. Moreover, Eck was observing the effect of the Theses
on the public mind. "Luther's Ninety-five Theses against
indulgences gave Eck, who had already attained notoriety
as a vainglorious polemist, no rest. Immediately after re-
ceiving them, he had declared that Tie would go ten miles
to debate them with the author.' The distance to Wittenberg
was indeed greater than ten miles." 36) To remain on Lu-
ther's side — if he ever was on . Luther's side • — required
a stronger friendship for Luther and, above all, a more dis-
interested love of the truth than Eck possessed. Eck placed
himself on the side of Luther's opponents. At the same time,
however, he was careful not to betray his sentiments to
Luther too soon; not a word of criticism or warning did he
send to his friend.

On business of his university Eck one day had to visit
the bishop of Eichstaett. During the conversation with the
bishop he alluded to Luther's Theses and voiced his dissent.
The bishop did not agree with the arguments advanced by

.35) Enders, I. c, I, 167.

36) Knaake, in Weimar Edition of Lutiier's Worlts, I, 278.

3. STABBIX6 A FRIEND IN THE BACK. 19

Eck, and the conversation became a lengthy discussion. Eck
had marked the places in Luther's Theses which he con-
sidered objectionable by little daggers, which scholars called
''obelisks." 37) After his visit to the bishop he wrote out his
exceptions, and sent a copy of his Obelisks, that is, of Lu-
ther's Theses with his annotations, to the bishop. He de-
clared later that he had to do this because the bishop had
asked him for his theological opinion on the Theses. This,
however, was a subterfuge; there is no evidence that the
bishop had asked Eck for a written opinion; on the con-
trary, it is known that the bishop was displeased with the
exaggerated accusations which Eck had raised against Lu-
ther. By spreading this tale, Eck was simply feeding his
vanity, and at the same time preparing a safe retreat for
himself in ease he should be attacked for his OhelisJcs.
Itching with a desire to become knovra. as a learned critic
of a document which was rapidly gathering national fame,
Eck let it be known that he had prepared a criticism of
Luther's Theses, and manuscripts of his OhelisJcs began to
be circulated among his friends and the savants of Germany.
Eck had adroitly permitted them to pass out of his hands.
His cousin Michel claims that Eck had not written his
Ohelisks for publication, and Eck himself, when the matter
became mooted, seemed greatly surprised that they should
have become public.38)

One of the manuscript copies of the Ohelishs reached
Wittenberg via Augsburg and Nuernberg about the end of
March, 1518. Eck must have dropped a copy at Augsburg,
where he had obtained an appointment as preacher ; for from
this place Canon Bernard Adelmann sent the Ohelisks to

37) Peter Mosellanus, in his Oratio d-e variorum Unguarum cog-
nitione paranda, published at Basel in 1519, explains the origin of this
custom as follows : "Origen, the Hebrew scholar, used to stab any
deviation from the original text of the Scriptures with which he met
in a commentary with an obelisk (f) or noted it with an asterisk (• ) ."
(Bl. E., 2a.)

38) We may note here that the actual publication of the Obelisks
did not occur until 1545, when they appeared together with Luther's
reply in the first volume of Luther's Works, published at Wittenberg,
Bl. CXLVb— CLVIIIb.

20 3. STABBING A FEIEND IN THE BACK.

Wenceslaus Link at ISTuernberg, who, in turn, forwarded tHem
to his friend Luther. Luther was pained when he received
the Ohelislcs, and upon the urging of his friends prepared
a reply which he called Asterishs, and a manuscript copy of
which he sent to Link with the following letter : —

It seemed good to me to go over one by one the Ohelisks which
you sent me and which our friend Eck has manufactured against
my Theses, and to add Asterisks to my Theses, which are indeed
somewhat obscure. If you will communicate them to him, he will
readily perceive by their light how rash it is to condemn the work
of others, especially when one has not understood it, and how ex-
tremely treacherous and abominable it is to cover with such bitter
gall the views, nay, the mere inquiries, of a friend without giving
him previous warning, and while the friend expects that every-
thing will be taken for the best by his friend. But it is true
what Scripture says: "All men are liars" (Rom. 3, 2). We are
men and will remain men.39)

This letter, which was written March 23, was followed the
next day by another, addressed to the pastor of Zwickau,
Joh. Sylvius Egranus. This letter reveals still more clearly
the keen grief which Luther experienced on account of the
faithless action of Eck. It also contains a reference to
Leipzig that is almost prophetic. Luther comforts Egranus,
who had been attacked by a Catholic theologian of Leipzig,
with his own example and says : —

I have seen the theses of Dr. Jerome Ochsenfart,40) which are
apparently directed against you, although your name has not been
mentioned. Be steadfast and brave, my dear Egranus; it has
to come to this. If these things were of the world, the world
would love its own. Whatever is in the world must necessarily
perish in the world, that the spirit be glorified. If you are wise,
congratulate me, as I do you.

Recently a man of signal and clever learning and of a trained
mind, and, what smarts the more, a man who was bound to me
by a great and recently established friendship, has written Ohe-
lisks against my Theses. I mean Johann Eck, Doctor of Theology,
vice-chancellor of the university of Ingolstadt, canon of Eich-
staett, and now, at length, preacher at Augsburg, a man already
famous and widely known by his books. If I did not know the

.30) XVIII, 536.

40) This is the Leipzig tlieologian ; he is named after his birth-
place Ochsenfurt on the Main ; his real name was Jerome Dungersheim.

3. STABBING A FKIEND IN THE BACK. 21

purposes of Satan, I should be astonished at the fury with which
the man breaks our friendship, which was of quite recent origin
and very pleasant, without giving me the least warning, without
writing me a word or bidding me farewell.

He has written Oielisks, in which he calls me a fanatic Hus-
site, heretical, seditious, insolent, and rash, not to mention lesser
abuses, such as, that I am dreaming, clumsy, unlearned, and
lastly, that I am a despiser of the Supreme PontiflF. In short, he
has written nothing but the foulest abuse, and he aims at my
Theses, so that there is in the Obelisks nothing but the malice
and envy of a most infuriated mind.

Still I wanted to swallow this sop fit for Cerberus in patience;
but my friends compelled me to reply to him, however, in a private
communication. Blessed be the Lord Jesus, yea, may He alone be
glorified, and we confounded as we deserve. Rejoice, my brother,
rejoice, and be not terrified at these whirling leaves so as to quit
teaching as you have begun, but be like a palm-tree in Kadesh
beneath the burden that weighs it down.

The more they rage, the further I advance. I leave yester-
day's doings and let them bark at them, and I pass on to new
things, that they may bark at them also. Continue your success ;
only pray the Lord that He may Himself work out His glory, and
see that His will is done. I have written Dr. Jerome Ochsenfart
that your assertions do not seem errors to me, but truths, while
his theses for the most part seem erroneous to me; also that
I am prepared and do not doubt in the least to see you defend
both your and my errors. However, if they should come with
quotations from the schoolmen, I would have him know that he
will not accomplish anything with us by such tactics, and would
only waste his words.

I am almost ready to swear that there is not a scholastic
theologian, especially not at Leipzig, who understands one chapter
of the Gospel or of the Bible, yea, not even a chapter of the
philosopher Aristotle, and I trust if ever I have an opportunity
that I shall prove this with honor, unless to know the Gospel
means to spell out its letters and syllables the best you can.
Accordingly, he not afraid in the presence of ignorance. Let the
rattling of such titles as doctors, universities, magisters, pass
out of your mind ; for they are specters and faces, — do not
tremble before men whose heart you see ! — nor are they the faces
of men, but only of specters.41)

Soon after writing his Asterisks and sending them to
Link, Luther had to set out on a journey to Heidelberg,
where he attended a meeting of the Augustinian chapter.

41) XV, 2461 £E.

•22 3. STABBING A FRIEXD IX THE BACK.

The journey took from April 11 to May 15. On April 26
Luther debated a series of theses at the Augustinian convent,
which are reproduced in an appendix at the end of this book,
"because they afford further insight into the quality of Lu-
ther's theology at this time. Having returned to Wittenberg,
Luther on May 19 wrote the following letter to Eck, address-
ing him as "one of his special friends" : —

Some Obelisks have come to me in which you have tried to
demolish my Theses on indulgence. This is a proof of the faithful
friendship which you have voluntarily offered me, yea, of that
evangelical charity according to which we are bidden to admonish
a, brother before accusing him! How could I, simpleton that I
was, believe or suspect that you would come at me from behind
while you were flattering your brother? You, too, have fuliilled
the Scriptures which say: "Which speak peace to their neigh-
bors, but mischief is in their hearts." (Ps. 28, 3.) I know that
you would not want me to do this to you, but you have done it
and have had the courage to do it; see now what your con-
science is saying to you. I am quite astonished to see with what
effrontery you presume to judge my opinions before you know and
understand them. Surely, this rashness is a very faithful wit-
ness that you think yourself the only theologian, so much so that
you imagine that your opinion must take precedence of every
' other, yea, that all that you have condemned, even when you
have not understood it, must stand condemned because it does
not please Mr. Eck. Prithee, suffer God at least to live and reign.
However, not to be at great length with you, since you are so
utterly infuriated against me, I have sent you Asterisks against
your Obelisks, that you may see and recognize your ignorance
and rashness. I am indeed sparing your honor by not publishing
them, but send them to you privately, so as not to render evil
for the evil that you have done me. I have written them only
for the person from whom I received your Obelisks, and desire
that you should receive my Asterisks through him. Otherwise,
had I wished to publish them, I should have written against you
more carefully and pertinently, yet also with more firmness.
Now if your confidence in your worthless stuff is still unshaken,
go to work and write; I shall meet you with equal confidence.
Perchance it will then happen that I shall not spare you either,
although God knows that I would rather that you should come
to your senses again, and, If you see anything in me that is dis-
pleasing to you, you would first deal with me like a friend, as
you know it behooves a theologian to do. For what harlot, when
in a passion, could not have vomited forth the same abuses and

3. STABBIKG A FKIEKD IN THE BACK. 23

revilings which you have vomited forth against me? Yet you
are so far from feeling sorry for this that you even boast of
it, and think you have done right. You have your choice : 1 shall
keep up ^ur friendship if you wish it ; or I shall cheerfully meet
your attack, for I see that you know nothing in theology except
the husks of scholastic opinions. You will find out what you can
accomplish against me when you begin to prefer war to peace
and fury to love. But may the Lord give to you and to' me
good sense, and bid us be of good cheer. Behold, though you
have hurt me, I lay down my arms, not because I fear you, but
God. After this it will not be my fault if I am forced to defend
myself publicly. However, let us speak pleasantly .42)

Meanwhile affairs were assuming an ominous aspect for
Eck through the entering in of a new element of which we
shall speak in another chapter. This caused Eck to dispatch
a letter to Luther's colleague Carlstadt on May 28, in which
he says : —

Most famous Carlstadt, I hear that you and your Witten-
bergers are greatly incensed at me because I wrote a few things
privately for my bishop against the teaching of our mutual friend
Martin Luther, thinking that these trifles- would never be sub-
mitted to the learned for their judgment. Now, as to how these
writings got out of the hands of my bishop into yours, I have
my suspicions indeed, but no certain knowledge. Had I foreseen
this, I should not have composed them without previous prepara-
tion or without consulting any books 'just as the thoughts came
into my head, nor should I have dumped them into my manu-
script in such a hurry. For as you know, we all use greater free-
dom when writing private letters than when publishing some-
thing. Accordingly, I am much surprised that you are so angry
at your most devoted Eck. I am told that you accuse me of
fawning. Ask all who know me, and they will confess that Eck
is not a man to be put off with empty words. And were I even
capable of it, I would not do it, least of all to a bishop with
whom indulgences for some accidental reason, I suppose, have
little weight. By the way, people say that you are getting ready
for a learned contest with me, which I can hardly believe. If
that is your intention, it seems strange to me that you do not
rather make for your neighbors at Frankfort and for the in-
quisitor who is appointed for discovering the malice of heretics ,-
for in their printed and published writings they claim that Martin
has erred a hundred times, and that sometimes he is mad, raving,
and insane. But if you will accord me the privilege of our re-

42) XXI a, 98 f.

24 4. THE DAGGEBS AND THE STARS.

cently established friendship, I shall regard your acts as done in
love, and shall ask you not to carry out what you are meditating
against the innocent Eck. It was not my intention at all to hurt
Martin, but if you make light of my friendship and believe that
I have gone beyond bounds, I shall not restrain you. However,
it would have been your duty if you wished to publish anything
against me to inform me beforehand. If I am convinced that
I have erred, I shall gladly confess my error, and not be ashamed
to do so. But if I see that you write against me in a heated and
cutting manner, I shall, as far as truth demands, defend myself
with the aid of faithful teachers and friends at the more cele-
brated universities in Christendom. However, I should rather
be spared this trouble. You will have to make up your mind
what is to be done, and when you have considered everything
well, you will have to start the skirmish. Greetings to you,
whose welfare I cordially desire and wish.43)

A few months later the Ohelishs had come into the hands
■of Erasmus, who wrote to Lang at Erfurt on October 17 : —

I hear that Eleutherius [Luther] is approved by all good
men, but it is said that his writings are unequal. I think his
Theses will please all, except a few about purgatory, which they
don't want taken from them, seeing that they make their living
from it. . . . I wonder what has come over Eck to begin a battle
against Eleutherius. But, "cursed love of fame, what wilt thou
not force mortal breasts to do?" (Aeneid II, 56 f.)44)

4. The Daggers and the Stars.

It is necessary now to take a little closer look at this
innocent lamb Eck and his little pleasantries, the Ohelishs.
These Ohelishs are the iirst reply that Luther received to the
challenge which he had issued by publishing his Ninety-five
Theses. With all their inanity and silliness they are a fair
sample of the arguments of Eoman theologians with which
Luther had to contend all his life. Moreover, practical
church-life in the Catholic Church of Luther's day is faith-
fully mirrored in them.

We indicated before that the Olelisles were not published
until a year before Luther's death. If Eck had not yielded,

43) XV, 804. 44) Pres. Smith, I. c, I, 122.

4. THE DAGQEKS A>'D THE STABS. 25

ther would have published them with his reply. However,
en Eck showed a disposition to drop the matter, Luther
t him more than half way. He even tried to suppress his
teHshs. Bernard Adelmann of Augsburg writes in a letter
ted January 10, 1519, and addressed to Pirckheimer of
lernberg : —

You know how anxious our good Martin was that his Asterisks
mid not be published.45)

When Luther, a year before his death, consented to the
blication of the OielisJcs and the Asterisks, he undoubtedly
3hed to leave to posterity a faithful record to show for
Lat issues he had to contend at the very opening of his
"ormatory career, and what malevolence had been mani-
;ted against him from the start.

We have in an appendix, at the end of this book, given

exhaustive summary of the Ohelishs and Asterisks, and
all content ourselves here with recording a few opinions
lich others have expressed on them.

Grisar makes very much of Eck as ^n antagonist of
ither. He says of the Obelisks. ■• "This tract is chiefly con-
med in a calm discussion of the matter in dispute, though
does not refrain from occasionally describing this or that
inion of Luther's as 'rash, corrupt, impudent assertion,'

an insipid, unblushing error, a ridiculous mistake, etc.
le severest remark, however, and that which incensed Lu-
er beyond all the rest was, that certain passages in the
dulgence Theses, owing to a confusion of ideas, made ad-
issions 'containing Bohemian poison,' i. e., savoring of the
rors of Hus." Grisar's enumeration of the epithets which
;k applies to Luther will hardly convince the reader that
e Ohelisks were a "calm discussion." ISTor has he, as he
ould have done, specified wherein the "confusion of ideas"
nsisted which led to Luther's fatal admission. Of the
derisks, Grisar says: In them Luther "speaks of the be-

45) Enders, I.e., I, 210. — ^ Grisar (IV, 377) states in opposition to-
historians and to the editor of the Weimar edition of Luther's Worlia
it Luther did publish the Obelisks together with the Aatensks in
[gust, 1518 ; but he does not state where he has seen this print.

26 4. THE DAGGEKS AND THE STARS.

havior of Eck, his quondam 'friend,' as most insidious and
iniquitous, aud mocks at his 'grand, not to say high-flown,'
preface. He says: 'Hardly was I able to refrain from
laughter'; Eck must have written his Obelisks during the
carnival; wearing the mask of genius, he had produced
a chaos. His writing adduced nothing concerning the Bible,
the Fathers, and the Canons, but was all arch-scholastic;
had lie, Luther, wished to peripateticize, he could with one
pufi have blown away all these musty cobwebs," etc.*'') As
a resume of the two treatises, Grisar's account is worthless,
as the reader can see by a perusal of the summary at the end
of this book. Grisar's forte is the study of Luther's passions
and indiscretions, and he has been true to his metier also in
this instance.

Vedder says of the Ohelishs: "As they were written early
in the controversy, about the beginning of the year 1518, they
treated principally the doctrine of repentance and the char-
acter of the sufferings in purgatory; they touched lightly,
hardly at all, on the question of the Pope's power. They
were brief criticisms of selected propositions froin the Theses,
free, incisive, outspoken, but there was little in them that
went beyond the .bounds of legitimate controversy. There
were several things, however, that" made them particularly
worrying to Luther and his friends, chief of which was the
fact that Eck had but recently become acquainted with the
"Wittenberg professors, and had shown a marked disposition
to cultivate their friendship. His attack on Luther was of
the nature of a surprise. Besides, Luther complained that
Eck treated' him ungenerously, called him violent, a Bo-
hemian, a heretic, seditious, rash, impudent; said he was
inept, unlearned, a contemner of the Pope, and other things
little less unpleasant. Eck was probably too harshly judged,
and Luther was oversensitive.'' "Legitimate controversy" is
good; but will not some genius come forward at last to fix
for us the "bounds" of such controversy? Vedder evidently
does not take Luther's complaint of Eck's treatment seri-

46) Grisar, IV, 377 f.

4. THE DAGGERS AND THE STARS. 27

ously. If Luther's complaint rests on fact, — and every his-
torian can examine the records, — it is not easy to discern
the fairness in Vedder's judgment. Of the Asterisks he says :
"In his Astei'isks, as is not unusual in controversy, Luther
attributed to Eck offensive epithets that the latter had not
used, while he used others toward Eck even more offensive
than those of which he complained. The controversy, of ■Ao
great importance in itself, had an important influence in
determining the course of events : it called out Carlstadt,
Luther's first active associate in his work against indul-
gences, and it produced a permanent estrangement between
Eck and his opponents. Both parties had just enough of
controversy to make them wish feu* more; each had a score
to settle. Eck, in particular, was restless, enterprising, un-
forgetting, unforgiving, and wished and watched for an op-
portunity to meet Luther and Carlstadt on another field.
Thus the OhelisJcs, a slight thing, of which he thought little,
and from which he , expected nothing, was Ecys first step
toward becoming a prominent actor in a great drama." **')

Luther's reply to Eck is indeed sharp and unsparing: it
lays bare the equivocations, sophisms, and self-contradictiona
of Eck; it exposes him to ridicule; it contains irony and
bitter scorn; it is a polemic such as Luther would write.
But a close examination of the document will convince any
reader that Eck had applied to Luther all the ofiensive attri-
butes which Vedder has enumerated, and more besides. He
had called him' "violent" and "rash" in the 6th, Yth, 8th, 13th,
and 19th Obelisk, "a Bohemian" and "a heretic" in the 18th
and 22d Obelisk, "inept" and "unlearned" in the 3d, 17th,
23d, and 24th Obelisk, "seditious" in the 13th, 26th, 29th, and
31st Obelisk, and "a contemner of the Pope" in the 22d and
28th Obelisk. Besides, we find such epithets applied to Lu-
ther's Theses as "frivolous" (3d, 5th, 11th Obelisk), "impu-
dent" (23d Obelisk), "poisonous" (13th, 26th Obelisk), "rav/^
and "insipid" (22d Obelisk), and in the 25th Obelisk Eck
calls Luther sneeringly "a new prophet."

47) I. c, p. 56 f.

28 4. THE DAGGERS AND THE STAKS.

However, in fairness to Luther two things should be borne
in mind. In the first place, Eck had been giving himself
the airs of a Humanist; he had created the impression that
he favored an improvement of the ruling theology of the age,
and a removal of the abuses that were practised in the
Church. His new friends in Wittenberg had frankly opened
their hearts to him. When they read his Ohelishs, they
naturally felt themselves deceived; for in that document Eck
swore by the old scholastic oracles, and fought them with
authorities which they believed he had renounced. He
showed himself an obscurantist as much as the men of Er-
furt, Leipzig, Cologne, and other places that had been char-
acterized in the Epistolde^Virorum Oiscurorum. He must
now be treated accordingly, and placed where he truly be-
longed. In the second place, there is a selfish and mercenary
vein running through the Ohelishs. Eck manifests a great
concern for the old superstitions and church customs of the
time, in the preservation of which the parish priests and
bishops were deeply interested, for they made part of their
living by them, as Erasmus shrewdly observed. Eck, more-
over, goes out of his way to point out that the supremacy of
the Pope has been endangered by Luther's Theses. By such
arguments motives were imputed to Luther which were alto-
gether foreign to him, and the odium which was thus en-
gendered against him must render all public discussion of
the issues which Luther had broached unfruitful, yea,
dangerous. Eck hinted that the laymen would henceforth
meet the priests not only with objections, but with arms.
He deplored that the attention of laymen had been invited
to these matters. His Ohelishs were an undisguised plea for
the perpetuation of the old ecclesiastical autocracy and aris-
tocracy. Such an opponent could not be treated with def-
erence, all the more because he was regarded as a learned
man and a genius. And yet we shall see how readily Luther
yielded to overtures of peace with Eck afterwards.

The account of McGiffert is much more in keeping with
the facts in the case. "Eor a time," he says, "Eck was gen-
erally reckoned a member of the growing humanistic party.

4. THE DAGGEKS A^D THE STARS. 29

and was on terms of intimacy with many of its leaders.
Luther spoke of him with marked respect in some of his
earlier letters, and frequently sent him greetings through
common friends. But the appearance of the Ninety-five
Theses led to a permanent break and the alinement of Eck
upon the side of reaction. He criticized them severely in
a paper intended for private circulation called Ohelishs. Out-
raged that a man he supposed his friend should attack him
without giving him any warning, Luther replied with con-
siderable asperity in a similar paper entitled Asterisks.
Thenceforth, although the forms of friendship were observed
for a while, there was growing enmity between the two
men." -i^)

Kolde sees in the exchange of polemics between Luther
and Eck the first impact caused by the collision of a theology
that is oriented by the Bible, and another which is reared
upon the tenets of scholasticism. Eck's Ohelishs, Kolde, too,
thinks, served to foment enmity against Luther.'**')

Hausrath summarizes the Ohelishs as follows: "The ob-
jections raised by Eck came with a bad grace from a Hu-
manist; for throughout they paid deference to the logic of
'our Magisters.' In Eck's opinion the. words of Christ : 'Re-
pent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,' signify the in-
stitution of the sacrament of penance as it existed in the
Church of that day, for the simple reason that the kingdom
of heaven is the Church. He says that he would consider
Luther's Theses merely clumsy, if they did not contain
a poisonous sting. Luther's claim that it depends entirely
upon the good pleasure of God whether the intercessory
prayers of the Church are heard or not, would lead to an
abolition of all memorial masses, masses for the dead, and
even of the canon of the mass, because the latter embraces
the dead in its intercessions and salutary effects. A similar
damage Eck sees arising from Luther's claim that the merits
of the saints are available directly, without letters of indul-
gence; for in that case all fraternities and sodalities for the

48) Martin LutUer, p. 134. 49) Martin Luther, I, 159. 151.

30 4. THE DAGGERS AND THE STABS.

veneration of saints would be useless. That means, thinks
Eck, nothing else than the scattering of Bohemian poison.
Yea, of Luther's Theses in general (most of which he regards
as rude and foolish) Eck can only say that 'they smack of
Bohemia.' " Of the Asterishs, Hausrath says : "Luther sees
in the perfidy of Eck, who secretly denounces him to his
bishop as a Hussite and at the same time privately writes
him friendly letters, a sad confirmation of the words of Scrip-
ture, 'All men are liars.' . . . Mockingly Luther remarks,
one can see that Eck wrote his book during the carnival
season, while he was wearing a mask over his face. In these
transactions two points emerge prominently, which were des-
tined to play a more important part later. While scholas-
ticism tried to fihd the grace which operates in a Sacrament
in what the Church and the priest do, Luther finds it in the
faith of the recipient. 'The Sacraments,' says Luther, 'do
not effect the grace which they signify, but prior to any
Sacrament faith is required.' Eaith, however, is a grace.
Hence faith always precedes the Sacrament, according to the
accepted axiom : 'Not the Sacrament, but faith in the Sacra-
ment, justifies'; 'not because it is done, but because it is be-
lieved,' to speak with Augustine. — Another i cardinal point
is touched upon in what Eck called 'the frivolous Theses.'
Luther has to admit that an Extravagant of Clement VI
speaks of a treasure of the merits of Christ, which is dis-
pensed through indulgences, while he had claimed that the
merits of Christ are communicated to the penitent by the
Office of the Keys, not by the purchase of an indulgence. He
thinks not all indeed that a Pope does is a decision of the
Church, but he admits that on this point the Bull Unigenitus
is not on his side. This concession Eck never permitted to
be wrested from him. The last and fundamental reason why
Luther would not allow faith and the merits of Christ to be
depreciated Eck did not understand, no matter how many
schoolmen he cited, and how much learning he displayed.
Luther mocks at him: 'He is the very tower of David on
which hang a thousand shields of testimony, but he has not
yet learned that the peace of Christians consists in this, that

5. alas! another friend! 31

they glory in having a good conscience, which no indulgence
can bestow, but only the remission of guilt by grace.' " 50)
It may not be amiss to call attention to the fact that both
in the Ninety-five Theses and in the Asterisks we have before
us Luther in his formative period. His views on such points
as the intercession of the saints, prayer to the saints, purga-
tory, the mass, and others, are not clarified, not as definitely
formed as they appear a few years later. Besides, the Theses
were not a statement of Luther's faith, — a popular error ! —
but a draft for a debate. They do not settle the matters to
which they refer, but call for a settlement. Luther purposely
inserted things in these Theses for no other purpose than to
bring on a discussion, and in the Asterisks Luther tells this
to Eck.

5. Alas! Another Friend!

Eck's letter of May 28, written in explanation of his
Ohelishs, was addressed not to Luther, but to Oarlstadt. Who
was this Carlstadt, and what caused Eck to write to him?

The real name of Carlstadt was Andreas Bodenstein.
Like Eck, he had been nairied after his birthplace Carlstadt,
or Carolostadt, in Franconia. He was Luther's senior by
three years. After studying theology and the canon law at
Erfurt, 1499—1503, and at Cologne, 1503— '04, he had come
to Wittenberg in 1504. Here he became Magister of Phi-
losophy in 1505, and took his degree as Doctor of Divinity
in 1510. He had become one of the earlier celebrities of
Wittenberg because of his scholastic learning, and in 1513
was made professor at the university. Soon after his appoint-
ment to a theological chair he made a journey to Rome, from
which he returned in 1515. He was startled at finding Lu-
ther express views about theology that were at variance with
the accepted teaching. He vigorously opposed them as sub-
versive of the entire scholastic- system, which indeed they
were and were intended to be. Luther, however, had main-

50) I. c, I, 196 f.

32 5. alas! another friend!

tained his ground with such force that Carlstadt began to
doubt his own position. He was forced into a more direct
and earnest study of the Scriptures than he had heretofore
engaged in. The result was that he was completely won over
to Luther's side. Carlstadt's was an impulsive nature : what-
ever he took hold of he pushed to the extreme. Melanchthon
has estimated him correctly when he says that Carlstadt
lacked both sound learning and real genius. His piety, too,
was questioned. Superficial and shallow, he seems to have
been able to impress men mostly by tjie mighty fervor with
which he threw himself into any issue. A man of this sort
usually becomes a violent and unreasoning partisan in any
cause he espouses. Accordingly, Carlstadt no sooner felt
himself freed from the spell of scholasticism than he began
to attack Aristotle and the scholastic theology with pas-
sionate zeal. While Luther was still quietly testing the
soundness of his convictions regarding this theology by in-
creased application to the Scriptures and by anxious cor-
respondence with his friends, Carlstadt, in September, 1516,
leaped into the arena of public discussion with 151 theses
against the scholastic theology. He was prepared to meet
any one who still wished to defend the old system. Pre-
served Smith thinks that Carlstadt was "by nature a revo-
lutionary, and longed to out-Luther Luther." 51) His theses
against scholasticism are the first evidence of this tendency.
The second evidence was furnished soon after. Carlstadt
seems to have possessed little judgment of the inconsistency
of his actions. He failed to see that his position on scho-
lasticism must affect his entire theology. After his im-
petuous onslaught on the theology of the schoolmen he could
not avoid api)earing as a man who had completely broken
with his theological past, as a progressive man far ahead of
most men in his time as regards enlightenment. That is
most likely the impression which he wished to create. We are
therefore justly surprised to see him defend relic worship and
indulgences in 1517. On April 26 of that year the Elector

51) Life and Letters of Martin Luiher, p. 58.

5. alas! another friend! 33

had his collection of relics exhibited at the Stiftshirche in
Wittenberg. On this occasion generous indulgences were pro-
claimed for allf who would make confession at an appointed
place. Carlstadt published theses in which he defended and
lauded this custom. Luther opposed him, and declared that
the regulation concerning the place of confession stated
merely a privilege, but not a command; for the forgiveness
of sins cannot be restricted to any locality. Carlstadt re-
plied angrily: "Luther, if I believed that you seriously hold
this view, I should prefer charges of heresy against you with
the Pope." S2)

This Carlstadt now becomes a defender of Luther's Theses
against indulgences when he hears that these have been at-
tacked by Eck. It was chiefly upon Carlstadt's urging that
Luther wrote his Asterisks and sent them in manuscript to
his friends who had received Eck's Ohelishs. That had ended
the matter with Luther. But the ambitious and headstrong
Carlstadt was not satisfied. Eck had dared to besmirch an
eminent member of the university; for this he must be
humiliated. Aside from his personal assurance that he was
well qualified for this task, Carlstadt decided that as dean of
the faculty he was the proper person to humiliate Eck, re-
store the tarnished glory of the University of Wittenberg,
and lead men to a better estimate of Luther and — of Lu-
ther's doughty champion Carlstadt. Behold the wonderful
gyrations of genius: the former opponent of Luther on the
question of indulgences is become his protecting patron and
defender !

Luther had started for Heidelberg on April 11. Burning
with zeal, his restless colleague could not abide Luther's re-
turn, but must take speedy action against the naughty Eck.
On May 9 Carlstadt issued theses which were to be debated
seriatim in public by applicants for degrees during the
semester. All the subjects contained in these theses related
to points of difference between Luther and Eck, but those of
the second and following series were a direct attack upon

52) Enders, I. c, I, 98.

DAU, LEIPZIG DEBiTE.

34 5- alas! another fkiend!

Eck. Carlstadt could never do anything on a small scale:
he ran his list of debatable subjects up to 370, and in July
increased it even to 405.53) Xhe theses were printed, and the
first sheets came ofF the press the day before Luther's return,
May 14. Carlstadt hastened to send these sheets to Spalatin,
who, in the interest of the Elector, watched all that .was going
on at the university with the closest interest. In the letter
accompanying the theses, Carlstadt says : —

Herewith I am sending your Eminence a part of my theses;
for all have not yet come off the press. With the help of God
you shall see how little Eck will be able to say in rebuttal, and
then you will believe that I am not at all afraid of him, and of
others, whom I shall refute one by one. . . The entire theses
I shall send with the next post.54)

It was upon receiving the information that theses hostile
to him were to be debated at Wittenberg that Eck vn-ote the
letter to Carlstadt which we introduced in a previous chapter.
Eck's plea of innocence in that letter is amusing, if not
disingenuous, but the letter shows that he would prefer to
have the matter dropped. The letter of May 19 which he had
received from Luther had suggested such a termination of
the affair. Being written four days after his return from
Heidelberg, that letter also shows what Luther thought of the
effort of Carlstadt, of which he certainly had learned in the
mean time. But Carlstadt would not permit himself to be

53) As regards the doctrinal contents, little fault can be found
with these theses, except with Nos. 326 — 3,43, which lacl£ perspicuity.
There is a genuine Biblical ring in all of them ; their greatest fault
is prolixity which has made some of the theses redundant. Carlstadt's
efEort was simply overdone. Loescher {Yollst. Ref. Acta II, 62 £E.),
who follows the old numeration of the theses, divides their contents as
follows : Nos. 1 — 101, on Biblical theology ; 102 — 140, against the pre-
amble in the Obelisks; 141 — 192, against the notion that repentance
means the Roman sacrament of penance ; 141 — 211, against the teach-
ing that the Pope remits penalties, except such as he himself has im-
posed ; 214 — 263, on free will ; 264 — 288, on the damnation of un-
baptized infants, on hell and purgatory ; 289 — 325, on predestination
and tree will ; 326 — 343, on indulgences and purgatory ; 344 — 380, on
the charge that the Wittenbergers are heretics ; 381 — 406, on free will.
The last twenty-three theses are directed against Tetzel. The theses
were published in four sections, beginning May 14 and concluding
June 7. The first respondent was Nicaslus Clajus of Herzberg, who
made his Bachelor's degree by the discussion. In the St. Louis edition
the theses are found in XVIII, 590— 633.

54) XV, 803.

5. alas! another friend! 35

balked in his g-rand. design to humiliate Eck. In order not
to be behind Eck in scholarly courtesy and a conciliatory
spirit, he decided, first of all, to answer Eck's letter. On
June 11 he writes him : —

Most learned Eck, your elegant letter has duly come to hand.
To answer briefly, I cannot withold from your Eminence that
I am greatly displeased with your unjust treatment of that pro-
foundly learned man Martin Luther. You have indeed accused
him of great and grievous crimes, viz., that he has offended the
Majesty by disseminating heretical teachings and causing a schism
in the Church. You have described him as a rebellious Bohemian
and have published these accusations. In the opinion of your
own Scotus, does- not anything that is written in its very nature
make things public and generally known? You have done this,
and thereby have furnished others not only the occasion to reply,
but even forced them to do so. For this reason I have published
a challenge, or rejoinder, to some of your conclusions. It has
been printed here at Wittenberg and is for sale at several places.
Because of your humanity I am truly sorry for having been com-
pelled to attack you. If things done could be undone, I would
rather that I had borne your injustice with patience than to
settle the matter with polemics and disputations. The reason
why I chose you particularly for an adversary instead of the
illiterate inquisitor or some one like him was not onvy, anger,
or passion, but your elegant style, industry, acumen, and, above
all, your own salvation and that of the common people. I hope
indeed that you will come over to our way of thinking, and out
of a Saul be made into a Paul. I did not want to engage in
a conflict with a, stupid ass, but with a renowned lion and an
eloquent Mark, and I thought it would not harm me to train
myself a little more in eloquence by your example. If I have in-
sulted you, I ask you to forgive me. But if you continue offend-
ing me, whom you have already offended, do so if you are able,
and if you do not mind being regarded as a person who mali-
ciously maltreats another, or even wants to overthrow the Holy
Scriptures. I am resolved to suffer war and tyrannical attacks
rather than keep a peace that is altogether wrong, because it
is to the damage and disparagement of the divine Word. I do
not care what becomes of me. I would not like to lose your
friendship if you grant me the privilege. I love you heartily.
May I perish if I desire your death or slightest misfortune!
I am striving with all might to have the Word of God, which,
alas ! has been cast aside in our sad times, become brighter and
more cheering to men, yea, as bright as the sun. Long live our
Martin, who has furnished the opportunity for proclaiming the

36 5- alas! another friend!

Law of the Lord in its power! Yea, long live Eck, our friend!
If, however, he is our enemy, he shall beconoie a lover of tlie truth.
This is what I wished to disclose to you hurriedly, and at the
same time send you my best wishes. . . . My dear Eck, forgive
me because I have wanted to forgive you. Pardon me if you
think that I have offered you vile talk. For my part, however,
I wish that you would not yield the least to falsehood, but rather
have it exterminated, banished, and crushed.55)

Two features in particular are striking in this letter:
the penitent mood that has seized Carlstadt. He speaks of
patience as the preferable method of dealing with offenses.
That sounds very much like Luther. Had Carlstadt had
a conference with his colleague? We doubt not. The other
feature is the undisguised vanity of the man, which renders
him contemptible and unfit to be a spokesman of the Church
in her troubles.

However, Carlstadt decided upon another matter. After
writing Eck such an amiable letter, the trouble might have
been considered at an end. Like in a French duel, each com-
batant, with a cruel effort, had' perforated a ribbon on his
opponent, and had made a courteous bow, and offered elo-
quent apologies. However, despite the reassuring sentiments
which he had voiced in his letter to Eck, Carlstadt ordered
the disputations at the univer_sity to proceed. The first took
place on July 14. Eck was disposed to pay no attention to
this disputation because it did not refer to him directly. But
when Luther's pupil Bartholomew Bernhardi assumed the
afiirmative in the second disputation, which was entirely
directed against Eck, the latter did not deem it proper to re-
main silent any longer. On August 14 he published a treatise
which he entitled "Defense of John Eck against the Bitter
Invectives of Dr. Andreas Bodenstein of Carlstadt." In this
Defensio Eck makes an interesting statement: —

The Reverend M. Luther, he says, in whose behalf Dr. Boden-
stein has undertaken this duel, frankly acknowledges, in the very
kind letter which I received last from him, that he does not see '
how I can decently remain silent and not defend my honor at
all, although he asks me with wise foresight to answer Dr. Boden-

55) XV, 805 f.

5. alas! another friend! 37

stein in a very gentle manner. To this request I am not at all
reluctant to accede, chiefly because it is he [Luther] that has
urged me to do so.Sfl)

This letter of Luther is lost, but there is no reason to
question the truth of Eck's statement; for Luther himself
refers to just such a letter as Eek has described in a letter
to Scheurl dated June 15. Scheurl, it appears, had inter-
ceded with Luther in behalf of Eek, and Luther in h,is reply
assures him as follows : —

My dearest Christopher, what you ask in behalf of our friend
Eek would have been altogether unnecessary for such a friend as
you to ask if the situation had not become complicated and he
had written before you. But my suspicion that Eck's mind has
been alienated from me has been greatly increased since after
calling me such dreadful names, even though it was done in a
private writing, he wrote me no letter and sent me no message.
However, now that the theses of our Carlstadt have been pub-
lished, though without my consent or even my knowledge, I am
not quite decided what each of us ought to do. I know that
we love the man's genius and admire his learning. Moreover,
as to what has happened, I at least am conscious and declare
that it was done in sorrow rather than in anger or envy. As for
myself, I have written to him the enclosed letter, which, you see,
is very friendly and full of good will towards him. Not only
for your sake, but also because of his own candid confession
I am quite reconciled with him, because he writes that it dis-
pleases him, if not me, that this accident has happened either
through some one's craftiness or malice. Accordingly, you have
my authority to do what you like in this matter, and so has Eek.
This regard only I should expect from your friendly offices that
Eek do not write our Carlstadt a harsh reply, and that he con-
sider that his was the first fault that such evil things happened
among friends. For since I gave out my Asterisks privately, I be-
lieve that there is no necessity of my replying to him, unless
he desires it. But if he prefers that a reply should be written,
I am ready for that also, although I should prefer peace. Let
us know therefore that you grieve with us that this temptation
has been launched by the devil, and, again, that you rejoice with
us because by the compassionate Christ it has been overcome and
put to rest.57)

In all fairness it must be acknowledged that Eck's De-
fensio was calm and considerate, though as regards the points

56) Enders, I.e., I, 210. 57) XXIa, 103 f.

38 6. THE CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE.

in controversy he yielded nothing. There had now been an
equal exchange of polemical literature between Carlstadt and
Eck, just as between Luther and Eck. The case might have
been closed at this point. Luther was so sure that he had
come to a fair understanding with Eck that he could assume
the role of arbitrator between his colleague and Eck. Carl-
stadt had placed Luther in a delicate position. Luther had
to disavow all knowledge and cooperation in Carlstadt's
polemical undertaking. Carlstadt had interfered in a matter
that was almost entirely personal between Luther and Eck,
and in which Luther had already taken the necessary action
by publishing the Asterisles. The plea that the honor of the
university demanded Carlstadt's action is too weak. More-
over, Carlstadt had acted with undue haste. By rushing into
print, Carlstadt had made it impossible for Eck to ignore the
attack made upon him, and Luther frankly acknowledged
this. On the other hand, Luther fastened upon Eck the
blame of the original offense in this whole sad business. Eck
must not forget that he started the trouble. Thus Luther's
conduct at this stage of the affair is marked by excellent
candor and impartiality.

6. The Challenge to a Debate.

Eck's Defensio reached Carlstadt August 28. After read-
ing it, Carlstadt gave it a new name : he called it Eck's
Monomachia, that is. Duel. As a means to settle his con-
troversy with Carlstadt and the Wittenbergers, Eck, namely,
had proposed in his Defensio either that Carlstadt's theses
and his Defensio be submitted to the Holy See for a papal
decision, or that a public disputation be held between him
and Carlstadt before the universities of Rome, Paris, or
Cologne. For, said he,

Of what use is it for -me here at Ingolstadt to keep shouting
against you while you are defending yourself at Wittenberg? This
will produce nothing but public offenses, waste of time, slanders,
divisions, contempt of the Holy Scriptures, and we shall both
become ridiculous. For in such a difficult matter to assail so

0. THE CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE. 39

shamelessly the good name of another is indeed in keeping with
the practise of theologians, but not with Christian godliness.
Paul says to Timothy that the servant of the Lord should not
strive nor engage in a wordy warfare. For such striving is not
to any useful purpose, but to the subversion of [the faith of]
the hearers. For the love of Christ and with a most godly
yearning I pray you, therefore, my dear Andrew, let us not seek
our own, but God's glory, and although we differ as to terms,
let us be united in brotherly love of the truth by the operation
of the Spirit, who through the diversity of tongues has gathered
all nations in the unity of faith. Farewell, and forget not your
profession of love and friendship.58)

Carlstadt, however, heeded this appeal sp little that he set
to work forthwith to prepare a counter Defensio, which he
published September 14. He inscribed it "The Defense of
Andreas Carlstadt against the Monomachy of the Excellent
Dr. Johann Eck.'' (To avoid confusion, we shall hereafter
refer to Eck's treatise as the Monomachy, to Carlstadt's as
the Defensio.) Carlstadt prefaced his Defensio vsdth the fol-
lowing remarks : —

Carlstadt accepts the verdict not only of the Apostolic See
and of the universities at Rome in Italy, at Paris in France, or
at Cologne in Germany, but of each and all who have read not
only the conclusion, but the entire contents of such writings as
these: the Dialogs of Jerome against Pelagius, the books of
Augustine on the Rewards of Sin, on the Spirit and the Letter,
on the Perfection of Righteousness, and against Julian, and the -
writings of other Church Fathers, such as Chrysostom, Cyprian,
Cyril, Hilary, Ambrose, Cassian, Gregory, Bernard, Bede, as far
as these have a bearing on the present controversy, and who have
understood these books.

It does not bespeak great confidence in the learning of
the universities to which Carlstadt refers that he specifies so
minutely the qualifications for which he looks in his judges.
Or did he only wish to publish a catalog of his own attain-
ments, and to serve notice that he would only submit to the
verdict of his compeers in erudition? The Defensio itself,
however, Carlstadt addressed to Provost Henning Goede and
Dean Laurentius Schlamau, doctors of jurisprudence and pro-
fessors at Wittenberg, and says : — -

58) Wiedemann, I. v., p. 79.

40 6- THE CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE.

It shall be your office to act the part of the Psylli 59) in this
controversy, to the end that the truth may send forth its light, and
to pray God that pride may be conquered and envy put far away
from US.60)

This might mean that Oarlstadt chooses Wittenberg as
the place, and his colleagues at the university as the judges
of his debate with Eck. At any rate, Wittenberg must have
been mentioned during the negotiations for the debate; for
Kolde records the fact that Eck declined this place.^l)

Carlstadt concludes his Defensio vpith a letter to Johann
Wortwein of the Order of the Knights of St. John at Wuerz-
burg, vcho will "refresh himself," he hopes, "with these lit-
erary labors" of his, and with a brief note \o Eck, in which
he states that he has reviewed only the first two series of
theses in Eck's Monomachy, and says : —

Now turn your heart with care to the teachers of the Church.
If there is anything ungodly in this affair of ours (which God
prevent ! ) , refute it ! Verily, I shall yield to the man who over-
comes me in battle. I ask your forgiveness for my hurried
writing. In Christ farewell.

Then follows the name of the printer, Johann Gruenen-
berg, the year of publication, 1518, and this Hebrew citation
from Eccl. 1, 2 : Habel habalim, that is. Vanity of vanities.62)
What a confession at the end of so much labor!

Carlstadt stipulated three conditions that must be met if
he was to face Eck in public debate : all his expenses must
be refunded him;®) he must be assured of safe conduct to
and from the place of debate, and reliable notaries must be
secured to take down the arguments on either side.

59) The Psylli were said to tie an African race of snake-charmers
who healed snake-bites by sucking the poison from the wounds.

60) XVIII, 632 ff. 61) !. c, I, 192. 62) XVIII, 710 f.
63) Carlstadt complains of extreme poverty in a letter to Spalatin

dated June 14 : "I do not wish to conceal from you that I am so
poor that I would not like to have my enemies know it. I have not
suffered such want as long as I am a doctor. However, do not let the
other side know this. I can neither purchase books nor food sufficient
to keep in good health. The zeal of my students is my only comfort.
I am troubled, however, because many have to stay out of my lectures
because they cannot get the necessary copies [of books which Carl-
stadt ought to publish for them, but had no money to have printed],
and I fear that some will go away in disgust, if our most gracious
Prince does not come to my aid. They are appealing to me every day,
and I have to feed them with empty hopes. (XV, 807.)

6. THE CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE. 41

The account of Eck's Monomachy and of Carlstadt's De-
fensio fills seventy-eight columns in the St. Louis edition
of Luther's Works. Carlstadt follows Eck point for point
just as Luther had done in the Asterisks. The joint publi-
cation of Eck's and Carlstadt's treatises is ,in the St. Louis
edition divided into two main sections. In the first, em-
bracing forty-two theses, Eck defends the claim which he had
set up in the preamble to the Ohelishs, viz., that the kingdom
of heaven signifies the Church as it exists now in the era of
the New Testament; he denies the necessity of daily re-
pentance for believers, and admits such a necessity only for
mortal sins. Carlstadt, on the other hand, is occupied with
showing the difference between the repentance of which Lu-
ther had spoken in his Theses and the sacrament of penance.
In the second main division, again embracing forty-two
theses, Eck maintains his first OhelisTc, viz., that repentance
of the heart is a great thing, because Christ prizes the in-
tention and the will above the deed. The argument turns
on the question what human free will can accomplish in foro
theologico, that is. When applied .to divine matters. Eck's
argument is Pelagian; he declares the will the king in man's
soiil. Carlstadt argues against the merit of man's works ; he
shows that Eck's teaching on the powers of free will repu-
diates the Scriptures, and that it confounds intention, which
is a gift of God, with the natural powers of man. Eck's
third division, on the spirit and the letter, in which me-
chanical service is unduly extolled, Carlstadt has not included
in his rejoinder. Carlstadt's review of the positions taken
hy Eck is drawn out at great length.

Carlstadt completed the manuscript of his Defensio in
two weeks (August 14 — 28). Luther must have seen Carl-
stadt's manuscript, for he writes to Spalatin August 31 : —

Another battle is being prepared by Dr. Andrew Carlstadt
against Eck's Monomachy. As much as I can gather, Eck has not
accomplished anything by his treatise, except that he has shown
where he is most vulnerable.64)

64) XXIa, 106.

42 6. THE CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE.

Four days later Capito, who was at Basel and had read
Eck's Monomachy, wrote to Luther : —

Johann Eck has -written against Andr. Carlstadt. You will
not debate before fair judges; may your most strenuous efforts
place us in a, safe position! I am privately writing Eck with
great freedom.65)

It is surprising that Capito regards it as self-evident that
Luther will be a party to the impending debate, and that he
expects a favorable issue from it because of Luther's co-
operation.

While these polemical writings were being exchanged, the
German Diet was assembled at Augsburg. Though nothing
was said at the Diet regarding Luther and his attack on in-
dulgences, the discussion of his Theses was the most popular
subject of conversation among the German princes and the
delegates. Eck, too, had come to Augsburg, chiefly to pay
his respects to the papal Legate Oajetan, who had been em-
powered by the Pope to suppress, by all means at his dis-
posal, the Hussite heresy in Bohemia and the neighboring '
districts. Luther was regarded at Eome as a Hussite, and
the Cardinal Legate had been given detailed instructions how
to deal also with Luther. If it should be necessary, he was
empowered to arrest Luther and send him to Rome. Towards
the end of August Luther received the official citation to
appear before the Legate for a trial of his charges against
Tetzel and the Church. A month later he started on his
journey to Augsburg. It must have been foreseen that he
would meet Eck at Augsburg, for Carlstadt had authorized
Luther to arrange definitely for his debate with Eck. Luther
entered Augsburg October T, and found lodging with the
Carmelite monks. He postponed his' visit to the Cardinal
because his friends had insisted that he must not present
himself before Cajetan without an imperial safe-conduct,
which he did not receive until October 12. During his very
first intervie\v, which occurred on this day, the Cardinal cited
against Luther the Extravagant Unigenitus, which declares
that the indulgences flow from the boundless merits of

65) XXI a, 109.

6. THE CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE. 43

Christ, from which, as from an inexhaustible treasure, the
Church dispenses to all who are in need by the sale of in-
dulgences. This was the very point on which Luther, in the
Asterishs^ had to make an admission to Eck. Luther seems
not to have been struck with this peculiar coincidence that
the Cardinal at their very first meeting, and after they had
exchanged but a few words, put his finger at once on a point
which Luther had had to acknowledge to be a weak point in
his position. Had the Cardinal been informed? The his-
torians think that the circumstantial evidence points to Eck
as the informer. Luther, however, makes no such complaint.
If a suspicion was raised in his mind by this circumstance,
he promptly suppressed it. It certainly would not have helped
his cause if he had charged the Cardinal that the latter was
fighting him with Eck's weapons.

During Luther's stay at the Carmelite convent, Eck came
to visit him and discussed his debate with Carlstadt with
Luther. It is not easy to fix the exact date when this meet-
ing took place. On October 11 Luther writes to Melanch-
thon, telling him that he will be informed by Carlstadt what
the state of affairs is at Augsburg.66) This letter is not ex-
tant.''^) It is possible that it contains an account of Luther's
conference with Eck. On October 14 Luther wrote an ac-
count to Carlstadt of his third interview with Cajetan, but
in this letter he says nothing about having met Eck.''*) Lu-
ther left Augsburg during the night of October 20 to 21,
and the six days which intervened between his last interview
with the Cardinal and his departure were taken up with im-
portant literary work. For not only did he write lengthy
letters to his friends about his conferences with the Cardinal,
but he also wrote very careful statements of his doctrinal
position for the use of the Cardinal, and, besides, his famous
"Appeal from the Pope ill-informed to the Pope to-be-better-
informed." These activities must have fully occupied Lu-
ther's time. On this ground we are inclined to believe that
Luther's meeting with Eck had taken place before the first
interview with Cajetan. If Eck, as is very probable, had

3) XV, 554. 67) Enders, I. l., I, 245. 68) XV, 565.

44 6. THE CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE.

formed a connection with the Cardinal, and the two had
reached a secret understanding, it was to the interest of Eck
and the Cardinal that Eck should visit Luther as soon as the
latter had reached Augsburg.

For the first time, then, the two men who had exchanged
letters for a year and a half met face to face at Augsburg.
The meeting seems to have been pleasant, and Eck showed
himself quite tractable. Three months later Luther was com-
pelled, by another queer move of Eck, to refer to this meet-
ing, and in the letter which he addresses to Carlstadt he says
the following about this meeting : —

As your representative I discussed with him at Augsburg the
possibility of composing your, diflferences with him by a personal,
friendly, and familiar meeting.69)

The places which Eck in his pompous challenge had named
for the debate were rejected by Luther. Eck, on his part,
declined to have the debate at Wittenberg. The two places
on which an agreement was reached were Erfurt and Leipzig,
and Luther promised to report the agreement to Carlstadt
and have him make a choice.

Towards evening on October 31, ISIS,^**) a tired monk rode
into Wittenberg on the road from Kemberg. The Duke of
Anhalt, whom he met on the road, had laughed at seeing him
ride, for it was plain that the monk could not ride. Near
Leipzig he had lost his way, or he would have reached Wit-
tenberg sooner. The monk was Luther, returning from
Augsburg- on the first anniversary of the Ninety-five Theses.

69) XV, 811. — Wiedemann's uncritical work is seen again at this
point. He claims tliat Luther was not sincere in his proposal of an
amicable settlement of the differences between Carlstadt and Eck by
a private meeting of the two. For in a letter to the Elector of Novem-
ber 29, 1518, Luther declares that he was ready for a public debate,
but Cardinal Cajetan had denied him permission to hold a debate.
This remark does not at all refer to the debate between Carlstadt and
Eck, but to a debate which Luther was personally willing to hold with
any one at Augsburg in order to maintain his ThesSb tor which he was
being tried. Besides, Luther had wished to repeat the discussion of
the scholastic theology in which he had engaged at Heidelberg ; he
thought it might be held at the Carmelite cloister. Also for this dis-
cussion the consent of the cardinal would have been necessary. If
Wiedemann's remark means anything, it must mean- that since Luther
was personally so pugnacious at Augsburg, it is impossible that he
suggested a peaceful settlement to Eck of his trouble with Carlstadt.

70) XV, 2428.

6. THE CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE. 45

A year had passed since that memorable day when he had
come forward in the simple faith of an honest inquirer with
the request that whoever could, would tell him by what right
indulgences are sold, and what they are good for. What
a year it had been! His humble act had been proclaimed
throughout Europe. The great men in Church and State
had begun to make inquiries about him, and the majority
of his friends had begun to move away from him as from
a marked man. He went to his humble cell in the Augus-
tinian cloister and wrote to his friend Spalatin : —

Hail, my dear Spalatin! By the grace of God I returned to
Wittenberg to-day, but I do not know how long I shall remain
here; for my affairs are in such straits that I am tossed about
between fear and liope.71)

But he did remain, trusting that He in whose name he
had begun the good work would see him through to the end.
He plunged right into his accustomed work, amazing his
friend with his courage and confidence. Two weeks later
(Ifovember 15) he wrote to Eck: —

Magister Andreas accepts our agreement made at Augsburg
that you meet either at Leipzig or Erfurt in a, fair disputation
for the discovery of the truth, in order that there may be an
end of quarreling and writing books. He asks you, accordingly,
to fix the day for the meeting and select one of the two places
named. He would have made the selection, but he thought that
he ought to give you the choice, because the fatigue of the journey
will be greater for you, and you may be rushed with work more
than he. See to it, then, that I have not urged him to this
resolution in vain, and that the hope of our adversaries, that the
theologians will quarrel forever and never agree, may be proved
futile.72)

Carlstadt, then, had the choice of the place for the debate,
and courteously surrendered his privilege. Luther seems to
have advised him to that effect. This generosity of the
Wittenbergers was used to their disadvantage ; for Eck chose
Leipzig, where Duke George and his university professors
and magistrates frowned and sneered and raved against the
daring heretic Luther and the little upstart university on the
Elbe. Luther never was a diplomat. Poor Luther!

71) XV, 2408. 72) XV, 810.

46 7. DUKE GEORGE HAS HIS WAY.

7. Duke George Has His Way.

Botli Luther and Eck now proceeded without delay to
make the necessary arrangements for the debate. The first
step to be taken was to obtain the consent of the authorities
at Leipzig. Both addressed letters to the theological faculty,
Luther still acting as agent for his colleague. Eck, however,
wisely sent another letter at the same time addressed to
Duke George, under whose territorial jurisdiction the Uni-
versity of Leipzig was placed, who was, in fact, its legal
owner. In this letter of December 4 Eck recounts to the
Duke the development of his difference with Carlstadt in
such a way as to reflect all credit on his own conduct and
throw all blame on his opponent. His bishop, he relates, had
requested him to write out an opinion on Luther's Theses,
which he had done in all sincerity. His exceptions had come
into Luther's hands, and then Carlstadt had felt himself
called upon to defend Luther's propositions, and had attacked
Eck in such a manner that the latter had no choice but to
challenge him to a public debate, unless Carlstadt preferred
to recant his errors and withdraw his charges. Carlstadt had
accepted the challenge, but to Eck's surprise had declined
Eome, Paris, and Cologne as suitable places for the debate,
and then Eck had offered him Erfurt or Leipzig.

Wherefore, as I do not fear to debate before any learned men,
I beg your Grace for permission to debate at Leipzig.73)

By the facts presented in previous chapters regarding the
origin and development of the controversy, we are prepared
to make the necessary corrections in the account which Eck
gave to Duke George. He does not mention that Luther had
replied to his Ohelislts, nor that the public discussion had
been arranged with the impartial aid of Luther. With his
letter Eck sent the Duke a copy of his Monomachy.

The first result of this correspondence appears in the fol-
lowing letter of December 16, which the Dean and Doctors
of the Theological Faculty of the university addressed to
Duke George : —

73) Pres. Smith, Luther's Oorresp., I, 135.

7. DUKE GEOBGE HAS HIS WAY. 47

We send your Grace certain letters of Dr. Eck. We surmise
that he is trying to get from your Grace that which he spoke
about in his letters to our faculty. And that your Grace may
briefly comprehend the affair, we give your Grace to understand
what happened last summer about the day of St. John [June 24],
when there was a dispute about papal graces and indulgences be-
tween the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther, of Wittenberg, and John
Tetzel, then of Frankfort [on the Oder], as your Grace doubtless
remembers. Then Lord Albert, Archbishop of Magdeburg and
Mayence, sent an honorable embassy to us to inquire which side
in this dispute was nearer the truth and what our opinion on
the said difference was. But considering that certain imperial
counselors at that time refused to give an opinion, we did the
same, and sent his Electoral Grace our memorial testifying our
good will to the following effect: Whereas both sides have
brought much scandal among the people, and we fear that more
will arise, and as each side is convinced that it is in the right,
our opinion would not make them lay aside theirs, but would
only impel them to assail each other with injury and scandal.
Moreover, as the affair concerns the Holy Father at Rome, it is
not fitting that we should meddle with it. But we advised that
his Electoral Grace should assemble a synod and have the thing
heard and decided by them. Otherwise, we feared an increase in
scandal. In the mean time John Eck, as he informs us, gave his
opinion on the same question to the bishop of Eichstaett, and
thereby fell into a, dispute with Dr. Carlstadt of Wittenberg.
And when he offered to dispute at Rome, Paris, or Cologne,
Dr. Carlstadt declined. And though we were long ago requested
by Dr. Luther in behalf of Dr. Carlstadt, as well as by Dr. Eck,
to interfere in this affair, we have thought it best for sundry
reasons to refuse both parties. For we feared that others, even
laymen, might be drawn into the quarrel, and that the Elector
Frederick might lay it up against this university, and that thereby
there might arise a quarrel between him and your Grace. Where-
fore we recommend Eck to commit the chief points of Dr. Luther's ■
propositions to some bishops for decision, or to a select board
drawn from certain universities, for thus, by a written or oral
disputation between select commissioners, the thing might be
ended.74)

Botli applicants, then, liad been refused permission by the
theologians of the university on the plea that the respect for

74) The entire correspondence on this phase of the Leipzig Debate
is quite extensive. It is found in Seidemann, Die Leipziger Disputation
im Jahre 1519, p. 22 fE. Ill fC. We have selected only essential parts.
Tlie present translation is from Preserved Smith, I. c, I, 139 f.

48 7. DUKE GEOKGE HAS HIS WAY.

the Pope, tlie peace of the Church, and public safety de-
manded that the debate be not held. These theologians were
far better statesmen and diplomats than theologians; their
answer would in our day be termed "a beautiful straddle"
by every politician. One reason, however, which they did not
express was their fear of the antischolastic theology which
was being championed at Wittenberg, and which was utterly
opposed to their ideals, they being hide-bound schoolmen.
Besides, they bore Luther personal ill will, which they had
manifested first through their Dr. Dungersheim, who wrote
against Luther, and then on a later occasion, of which we
have an interesting account from Luther. In July, 1518,
Luther had been at Dresden, most likely on business of his
order, and had preached before Duke George on July 25.
During his visit the following incident occurred which Lu-
ther six months later explained to Spalatin at the latter's
request : —

You must not be surprised, my dear Spalatin, that some
people claim I was conquered at a, banquet in Dresden, for they
have long been saying even other things, in fact, anything they
have pleased. True, together with our John Lang and the Dresden
Prior [Melchor Miritsch] I was compelled rather than invited by
Jerome Emser (a lecturer in theology at Leipzig and confidential
agent of Duke George) to attend an evening drinking party.
Thinking that I was among friends, I soon found that I had
fallen among spies. There was present a little Leipzig professor
[Weissestaedt], a poor Thomist, who thought that he knew every-
thing extraordinarily well. Though full of hatred against me, he
treated me kindly at first, but finally, when a dispute arose, he
attacked me violently and with a loud voice. All the while there
stood outside a Dominican monk of the preaching fraternity, who
was listening to all I said. Later I heard that he had bragged
that he had become extremely incensed against me, and could
hardly restrain himself from coming in to spit in my face and
call me all manner of foul names. So much this man was scan-
dalized because I refuted Thomas Aquinas for the benefit of the
little professor. This is the person who boasts even to-day that
I was so completely confounded that I could not answer a word
either in Latin pr German. For since we argued as usual in
mixed Latin and German, he claimed quite confidently, that I did
not understand a word of Latin. By the way, our dispute related
to the worthless stufl' in Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. I showed

7. DUKE GEORGE HAS HIS WAT. 49

that neither Thomas nor all the Thomlsts together had under-
stood a single chapter in Aristotle/ At last, when he became
boastful, I asked him to gather together all the forces of his
Thomistic learning and explain to me what it means to fulfil
the commandments of God. "I know," I said, "that there is not
a Thomist who knows this." At this point the rude man, con-
scious of his ignorance, cried out, "Pay your fee!" (for so the
money is called which a pupil pays to his teacher) ; for what
else could, he have answered since he knew nothing else ? Break-
ing into a laugh at this silly reply, we parted. Afterwards the
Prior of Dresden wrote me how they had bragged and made me
contemptible at the Duke's court, calling me an unlearned, proud
man, and I know not what other names; also, how they had
twisted my sermon at the castle in every possible way. I had
referred to an entirely theological subject, viz., the story of three
virgins, and afterwards they prated that I had referred to three
women at the court of the Duke. In short, I have had to suffer
from a generation of vipers (Luke 3, 7), who, thinking that they
lose some of their dignity if they leave anything about me un-
blamed, want to do everything and can do nothing. I have
treated these clowns with contempt, and wrote him to keep quiet
and leave me my Cain and Judas. But Emser has eagerly ex-
cused himself, and when I was at Leipzig lately, he swore to me
that he had set no trap for me. I said to him what I still say:
th|it I despise such empty fury. If they are so very learned, they
have presses and paper, let them publish something and display
the glory of their splendid learning. My sermon was on St. James
the Greater, whose festival occurred at that time. I preached on
the Gospel (Matt. 20, 20 — 23) : "Ye know not what ye ask," and
I scored the foolish wishes which men utter to God in prayer,
and taught what a Christian ought to ask for.75)

Kalkoff relates that the spy to whom Luther refers in this
letter "collected what Luther said, together with other things
he had uttered in his sermons, and some things from his
writings, and sent them promptly to Rome, where they pro-
duced a great effect. Indeed, this probably had great weight
in inducing Pope Leo to change Luther's summons to Rome
to a citation to Augsburg (before Cajetan), where it was
thought he could be more expeditiously dealt with." ''6)
These Leipzig worthies, then, would certainly do all in their
power to thwart any public discussion that was to be held
in the interest of Luther's teaching.

75) XV, 2386 f. 76) Pres. Smith, I. c, I, 150.

DAD, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 4

50 7. DUKE GEOEGE HAS HIS WAY.

On December 30 Duke George sent the following answer
to the theological faculty of Leipzig : —

Honorable, learned, dear, and trusty Gentlemen! We have
received your letter and one from our dear and trusty John Eck
of Ingolstadt, in which he begged that he might hold a public
debate with Dr. Andrew Carlstadt of Wittenberg before you. And
we have read the reasons why you refused this, and we consider
that if, instead, you would do all you could to further it, and
would give these doctors of other universities a place to debate
in, you would win no little fame, praise, and honor thereby.
And if you did this, you would not therefore be compelled to
give any assent or recognition to the debate, but at need could
recommend the decision to the papal commissaries or other proper
authorities who stand ready to take the responsibility. Moreover,
you should not be anxious lest any uproar or unpleasantness
might arise from the propositions; but when and if it should
arise, we can then deal with it.77)

Duke George, then, was determined, in opposition to his
theologians, to have the debate take place at his university.
His primary reason was the petty jealousy with which he had
from the beginning persecuted the young university founded
by his relative in Ernestine Saxony, when that part of the
Saxon domains, after the division in 1485, was left without
a university. The theological faculties were the most promi-
nent part of a medieval university; accordingly, when the
theologians of a university became dishonored, the entire
university suffered serious injury. Duke George knew that
ever since the .publication of Luther's Theses the sentiments
among the higher and lower clergy were extremely hostile
to the new university. If representatives of this university,
now, should happen to be defeated in a famous disputation,
great honor would redound to the Duke's university, and the
university of the Elector would be publicly discredited and,
perhaps, be forced out of existence. ^8) Another reason was

77) Pi-es. Smith, I. c, I, 143 f.

78) Luther, too, knew of the scorn with which the University of
Wittenberg was treated by ecclesiastics and princes, and at one time
he expressed a fear that the affair between Caristadt and Eck might
turn out to the harm of his schooi, especially if Rome should succeed
in suppressing him first. After his return from Augsburg, where he
had appealed to the Pope, it looked as if he would have to be handed

7. DUKE GEORGE HAS HIS WAY. 51

the Duke's low opinion of his theologians. He regarded them
as a lazy set of men, who did not earn the bread he was pro-
viding for them, and must be stirred up to do something for
the glory of the university.

During the§e negotiations Eck and Luther were still in
correspondence with one another. We noted a letter which
Luther wrote to Eck to inform him that Carlstadt had left
the choice of the place for the debate to him. Meanwhile
Luther had published a reply to the criticism which Rome,
through Silvester Prierias, had directed against his Theses.
Eck read this reply and wrote his opinion about it to Luther.
Ln a letter to Link at N^uernberg, dated December 11, Lu-
ther says : —

Dr. Eck writes me that he is neither altogether pleased nor
altogether displeased with my reply to Silvester Prierias, and adds
a very wise and true remark, viz., that his opinion does not weigh
much with me; for, indeed, I regard his advice as worthless. 79)

In the letter to which Luther refers Eck must also have
mentioned the effort which he had made to obtain from the
Leipzig authorities the favor to hold his debate at that place.
For on January 7, 1519, when Luther was at Leipzig, he wrote
to Eck: —

My dear Eck, we have tried in many ways to obtain from
the gentlemen at Leipzig the permission concerning which you
write, but they simply refuse, alleging that it is not in their
power to serve us in this affair, because the decision rests with
their ordinaries. Eor so the dean of the theological faculty
answered my letter. Hence I fear this debate will be frustrated,
unless you have another plan.

over to the tender mercies of the inquisitorial tribunal at Eome. On
November 19 he wrote to Spalatin, pleading that the Elector should
insist that Luther be tried on German soil, because of the Wittenberg
school. "I would not like to see," he writes, "an Interruption of the
study of the best young men, who are showing an extraordinary zeal
for the Holy Scriptures, and who ought . to come under the merciful
provision of the rule stated in Ex. 23, 19 : 'Thou Shalt not seethe the
kid in his mother's milk' ; for they are still suckling kids in theology.
But after I am suppressed, the door is thrown open to our enemies
against Carlstadt and all our theologians, and our university, hardly
bursting into flower, will be suddenly destroyed. Just as Pharaoh ordered
the new-born infants of the Israelites to be drowned." (XV, 2420.)
79) XV, 2431.

52 7. DUKE GEOBGE HAS HIS WAY.

At the same time Luther replied to Eck's criticism of his

answer to Prierias : —

As regards my "Explanations" [to the Ninety-five Theses],
I expect, and that quite eagerly, that you will do what you have
promised, viz., prove that even the principles on which I base my
Theses are worthless. When I quote Tauler, you'say: "I do not
know who that is," and you are surprised that I prefer Tauler
alone to Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, Alexander Hales, etc.
It seems ridiculous to you that I demand that you should with
me accept this one writer who is unknown to the Church, while
I have myself rejected so many authorities. But I beg you to
read him before you pronounce him a dreamer, unless by your
long-continued habit of being engaged on vanities you, too, have
become one of those very smart people who call the Pope, the
bishops, the professors at the universities the Church, and think
that whatever is unknown to these people is unknown to the
Church. I wonder, however, who may have told you that Tauler
is unknown to the Church. , But you are the Church ; all things
are known to you! Do you not see that you arrogate to your-
self the right to judge things which you have not pondered?
Wherefore, if you wish to admonish me, pray, employ judicial
acumen, and consider each point carefully. Reflect that I know
very well that he was unknown to your Church; for I said that
he was not found in the public schools and had been written in
the Latin language. Moreover, remember in what way I have
given him the preference to the scholastics, namely, because
I have learned more from him than from all the rest. How
prudently you have dodged this statement of mine! And yet
I do not understand how you can finally threaten to hurl thunder-
bolts at me by attacking my ignorance, as if I had not read and
did not know what you wrote, while you know well what I wrote,
when you say of my authority: "I do not know who that is."
Well, that you may know who he is, read him, lest you be found
to be a foolish judge who condemns what he does not know.
Not to demand of you what is beyond your strength, I do not
ask you by drawing upon each and all of your scholastics to
produce one sermon equal to his. I do not ask this because I am
certain that it is impossible. But I only ask you urgently to
use all your powers of intellect, with all the fulness of your
scholastic learning, all your qualities and acquirements, and see
whether you can fully understand one or two of his sermons.
After that we shall believe you that he is a dreamer while you
are wide awake, or are at least one who is sleeping with his
eyes open. I write you this, my dear Eck, to keep you from
spending useless labor by admonishing me, and to induce you.

7. DUKE GEORGE HAS HIS WAY. 53

instead, to undertake something which I cannot overthrow, and
which will compel me to change my mind. I mean, do some-
thing that is worthy of your gifts and your effort, lest we both
make a poor use of our time. Farewell, my dear Eck.80)

In Luther's opinion, then, there was to be no debate un-
less Eck should find a new way to arrange one. But when
Luther wrote this letter to Eck from Leipzig, he did not know
that Duke George, seven days before, had given Eck the de-
sired permission to hold the debate at Leipzig,^!) and when
Eck received Luther's letter, he must have smiled. Yes,
Duke Greorge had simply overridden his theological professors.
In his letter to the theological faculty which we noted before,
he informed them of his action, and enclosed not only Eck's
letter to him, but also a draft of the reply which he desired
the faculty to send to Eck.- This was brutal ; but brutal was
the character of Duke George. . Besides, the Duke knew that
only the theologians opposed the debate, while all the other
members of the university favored it as an event that was
destined to bring great renown to their school.

For Eck the action of Duke George proved fortunate;
for this eager disputant had as early as December 29 pub-
lished twelve theses which he proposed to debate with Carl-
stadt "in studio Lipsensi," that is, at the University of
Leipzig. This premature publication of Eck has been pro-
nounced rash, on the ground that Eck could not know, when
he issued the publication, whether he would be permitted to
debate at Leipzig. This may be true, and in that case Eck,
who at Vienna had had an experience with a reluctant faculty,
may have wished to confront the Leipzig theologians with an
accomplished fact from which they might feel that they could
not recede with honor. Eck could argue that, having waited
three weeks for the reply, — he afterwards claimed a much
longer time, — and in order not to lose more time, he had

80) XXI a, 136 f.

81) Pres. Smith, I. c. I, 144. Duke George says: "We are pleased
that you have chosen our university. We trust to you that this debate
may not be dangerous, but only for the sake of elucidating the truth.
We have therefore given order [ !] to our university to grant your
request."

54 7. DUKE GEORGE HAS HIS WAT.

interpreted the silence of the faculty as consent, and pro-
ceeded with the further arrangements for the debate.82)
However, it is also possible that Eck, at the time when he
published his theses for the debate, knew that the university
and the Duke were in favor of permitting the debate, and
he shrewdly figured on the ultimate defeat of the opposing
theologians. In this calculation he was not deceived.

The poor theologians received their Duke's letter before
January 4. In their plight they resolved to send a personal
representative to the Duke, who was to plead with him to
desist from his resolution. At the same time they addressed
a letter of complaint against the Duke and the other mem-
bers of the university to Bishop Adolph of Merseburg, who
was the chancellor of the university. During these trans-
actions Luther paid his hurried visit to Leipzig, and received
the impression that there would be no debate. He did not
learn all that had transpired between Duke George and Eck,
and Duke George and the Leipzig theologians. But what he
had learned and written to Eck was essentially correct; for
three days later, January 10, Caesar Pflug, the Duke's trusted
counselor, wrote to his master : —

The theologians at Leipzig are extremely sorry to allow the
disputation between Martin Luther and the professor of Ingol-
stadt, and beg that your G-race will be present at it in person.83)

But did not Pflug's pen slip when he wrote Martin Lu-
ther instead of Carlstadt? We shall see.

The Bishop of Merseburg came to the aid of the distressed
theologians with a letter to Duke George dated January 11 : —

We doubt not that your Grace well knows that many scan-
dalous writings and sayings about indulgences have recently gone
about, causing much offense among the common people and much
danger to souls. Also, we have recently heard from His Holi-

82) He declared later, when he was faulted for having published
his theses so soon, that he had acted in good faith, for the refusal of
the theological faculty had not reached him till February 4, and
Luther's letter from Leipzig he had not received until February 8,
because he had been compelled at that time to make frequent journeys
between. Ingolstadt and Augsburg.

83) Pres. Smith, I. v., I, 147.

7. DUKE GEOKGE HAS HIS WAY. 55

ness at Rome that he will not suffer such matters to be disputed,
inasmuch as they are not doubtful or disputable. But we are in-
formed by the worthy and learned dean of Meissen and his brother
[Matthew Hennigk, professor of theology at Leipzig] that Dr. Eck,
of Ingolstadt, has begged of the University of Leipzig the oppor-
tunity to dispute on indulgences, as your Grace doubtless knows.
But we think, as the Pope expressly forbids the same, that \re
are straitly bound by our oath to hinder in our diocese all that
might offend or disparage the honor of the Roman See. Where-
fore we have written and warned the dean of the university. . . .84)

The bishop's argument is unimpeachable. The Pope had,
by the Bull Cum postquam of November 9, 1518, forbidden
all public discussion of the Ninety-five Theses, and neither
the bishop, as chancellor, nor the theological professors had
any option in the matter. But neither, it seems, had Duke
George and the other professors of the university, if they
wished to be obedient sons of the Church.

The comfort which the Leipzig theologians derived from
the letter of their bishop was of short duration; for on
January 15 the rector and doctors — not the theologians —
of the university wrote Duke George : —

We would have your Grace know that Dr. Eck has asked for-
a convenient time and place to hold his debate with Dr. Carl-
stadt. Wherefore we forward his prayer to your Grace, and

ask that you will write us what you think on the matter. We
will labor diligently in this for the profit of the university, not
considering the earnest and written protest of Lord Adolph,
Bishop of Merseburg.85)

This meant that the theological faculty was disavowed
by the rest of the professors. The writers undoubtedly knew
the Duke's mind in the matter as expressed in his letter to
his theologians, because that had led to the remonstrance with
the Bishop of Merseburg, and they refer to that. What they
wished to know of Duke George was, whether he adhered
to his original resolution* to have the debate take place at
Leipzig.

Two days later Duke George sent a blunt reply to the
bishop, and since there had been a suggestion that the aifair

84) Pres. Smith, I. v., I, 147 f. S-")) I <:. I, 152.

56 7. BUKE GEOBGE HAS HIS WAT.

might require oral representation by a confidential agent, he
.had the following memorandum drawn up for his counselor
Dietrich von Werthern : —

Dr. Eck has desired of us that he might debate after the
scholastic manner before the theological faculty of Leipzig with
Dr. Carlstadt, and has prayed that we should arrange with the
said faculty for a time and place, and that we should be present
in person to hear the debate. We have no objection to the same,
thinking that it will redound to the honor and glory of the uni-
versity to have such able men dispute before it. And we rep-
resented to the said faculty that they should not object to the
same, considering that they were in no wise committed to the
subject of the debate, but could take what stand they chose in
it, and, moreover, as they were doctors and teachers of the Holy
Scriptures, that it was their duty to bring to light what is true
and what is false. But the dean of Meissen has informed me
that it is not considered well that the disputation should take
place, which I think he did at the instigation of the faculty.
For they are so small-minded that they fear they will get into
trouble through this debate, or perchance, as they themselves
confess, they are not able to converse with such learned men. . . .
But we think that they should earn their bread by discharging
the duty of theologians, namely, bringing the truth to light. For
otherwise I should have to tell the truth to Dr. Eck, namely, that
I found my theologians so unlearned that they were afraid to
dispute with such learned men.Sfi)

We see here the same brutal fratikness as on a previous
occasion. The pig-headed Duke refuses to do what his re-
ligious principles should have compelled him to do, viz., obey
the Pope. He would have his way, at least in this instance.
On January 19 he wrote to the university that he believed
the debate would increase their renown abroad, that he had
written a letter to the bishop, which, he hoped, would prove
satisfactory, and that he was glad to learn that the members
of the imiversity had come to an agreement, and would grant
Eck and Carlstadt permission to hold their debate.^?)

The bishop, however, was not at all satisfied with the
letter of Duke Greorge, and on January 24 wrote to remind
him that it was really his duty as a loyal member of the

S) I. c, I, 152 f. 87) I. c, 1, 155.

7. DUKE GEOKGE HAS HIS WAT. 57

Church to prevent the debate because the head of the Church
would not have it. He now asked the Duke to send a con-
fidential commissioner with whom he might discuss the mat-
ter, because he felt that it was not convenient to say all he
wished to say in a letter. To the university members who
had written their bishop an explanation why they had con-
sented that the debate should be held, the bishop wrote
January 31 and declared it a matter of course that they
could not disobey the Duke's order, which clearly was to the
effect that the debate should be held. He desired that the
Duke's dignity and exalted station should be respected;
nevertheless, he asserts that his interdict of January 11 was
not issued without compelling reasons.

On February 1 the university informed Duke George that
they had executed his order and granted Eck the desired
permission. It still remained to win over the theologians
and the bishop, whose last letter the Duke had answered with
another brutal and indignant reply that was not at all com-
plimentary to the theological faculty. Instead of sending
a commissioner to the bishop, the Duke suggested to the
bishop that he might send a commissioner to him. When
the bishop, however, on February 5, repeated his request for
a conference vsdth a personal representative of the Duke,
Caesar Pflug was sent to Merseburg. But he accomplished
nothing; for the bishop declared that in view of the papal
bull of November 9 he would be compelled to publish a notice
forbidding the debate. This was probably the delicate point
which he had not wished to mention in writing, because he
foresaw that it would rouse Duke George's resentment. The
theological debate between Eck and Carlstadt, therefore, was
arranged without the consent and against the wishes of the
Leipzig theologians and the ecclesiastical powers. It had
been anathematized in advance.

58 8- STEIKINQ AT ANDREW AND AIMING AT MABTIN.

8. Striking at Andrew and Aiming at Martin.

We noted in the preceding chapter a letter which Luther
wrote to Eck from Leipzig. What had hrought him to
Leipzig at this time? He was on his way home from a con-
ference at Altenburg, where he had met the papal commissary
Miltitz. This gentleman had accomplished what Cajetan had
failed to accomplish at .Augsburg: he had induced Luther
to promise that he would desist from further polemics on the
subject of indulgences, provided his opponents would like-
wise stop all controversy. At Leipzig Duke George himself
told Luther that Eck had been refused to hold his debate
with Carlstadt at Leipzig. This augured well for the cessa-
tion of hostilities to which Luther had just obligated him-
self. To his Elector Luther had written the day before : —

■I promised to stop my discussion of the pending controversies
and allow the matter to bleed to death, provided my adversaries,
too, remain silent. For I believe that if they had allowed my
writings to go unattaeked, everything would now be quiet; the
song would be finished, and everybody would be tired of it. I fear
that if this measure is not adopted, and they continue to attack
me by violence and speech, the quarrel will begin in earnest and
the offense will become a serious matter; for my arsenal is still
fully stocked. For this reason I have thought it best to stop this
business.88)

It seemed now as if Carlstadt's trouble with Eck, too,
would be relegated to forgetfulness. If peace could be re-
stored to the Church by this truce, Luther felt disposed not
to hinder it, though he would have preferred to have the
matter fought out in a clean argument on the basis of
Scripture.

Towards the end of January he received a copy of the
theses which Eck had published for his debate in Leipzig.
Eck called this his "schedula" for the debate; he had sent
Luther this copy. To his amazement Luther read the follow-
ing propositions : —

1. It agrees neither with the statements of Holy Scripture nor
with the holy fathers, Augustine and others, to declare that our
Lord Jesus Christ, when saying, "Repent!" desired that the entire

88) XV, 697.

8. STEIKTNQ AT ANDREW AND AIMING AT M.IBTIN. 59

life of believers should be repentance ; accordingly, this term can
quite properly be understood as referring to sacramental penance.

2. Although venial sins occur daily, yet we deny that the
righteous sin continually, even in every good work, also in the
moment of their blessed death; we also declare it an error that
the righteous, while his righteousness remains in him, can com-
mit a mortal sin, or that in a baptized infant that sin remains
which has sprung from the will of another person.

3. We hold that a person who maintains that repentance is
not properly begun by abhorring sin and considering its great-
ness, etc., and that this makes a person's sin still greater, should
not be listened to, because he teaches, as it were, contrary to the
Gospel and the holy fathers.

4. We consider it contradictory to Holy Scripture and the
custom of the Church to say that God, by canceling guilt, also
remits the punishment and does not change it into a temporal
penalty by which satisfaction is to be rendered, and which is made
known by the canons and the fines which the priest imposes.

5. We do not grant that every priest, no prelate excepted, can
and must remit the guilt and punishment of his subjects when
they ask him, and that a prelate who does not completely absolve
from punishment and guilt commits a sin; because this is con-
trary to the practise of Holy Mother Church.

6. ,We consider it an error to say that the souls in purgatory
do not render satisfaction for the punishment due their sins, from
the guilt of which they were absolved here, but for which they
had not sufficiently atoned; just as we do not regard that person
free from error who does not believe that God exacts from the
dying another punishment besides that of death.

7. We do not grant that because of the imperfection of love
and faith there arises in the souls of the dying a horror and
something akin to despair by which they are tormented in pur-
gatory, and that they are overwhelmed with this horror by their
fear of death which causes them to loathe dying; because this
is contrary to the truth and reason.

8. We deny as contrary to our faith and all reason that the
souls in purgatory merit more grace ( than they possessed here ) ,
or that their rewards are decreased when they are liberated by
the merits of others, or that they are not certain of their salva-
tion, or that they do not desire our help.

9. We deny that the merits of the sufferings of Christ are not
the treasure of the Church from which indulgences are dispensed,
because this contradicts the truth and the Apostolic Decrees;
just as we consider it very great ignorance to believe that the
Keys are the treasure of the Church. Moreover, we reverently
believe that we are helped by the merits of the saints.

60 8. STRIKING AT ANDEEW AND AIMING AT MAETIN.

10. It is an error to say that indulgences are useless; like-
wise it is a very vicious error to say that indulgences are a sort
of poor makeshift substituted for works, and that they are there-
fore of inferior value. Accordingly, we also hold that the per-
son errs who says that he is bound to reject indulgences on the
ground that the Lord says : For My sake I blot out transgressions,
instead of saying: For the sake of money.

11. It is an error that the Pope, by issuing indulgences, can-
not remit the punishment due for sin; yea, it is an error that
he cannot absolve the souls in purgatory from punishment; but
above all we do not admit that the dying, the sick, those pre-
vented from going to confession, and those who are not guilty
of flagrant and gross offenses, are not in need of indulgences.

12. We deny that the Roman Church, prior to the times of
Silvester, was not superior to other churches, but we have always
acknowledged the person who occupies the chair and has the faith
of St. Peter to be the successor of Peter and the Vicegerent of
Christ.89)

These theses showed plainly that in the coming debate
Eck meant to fight Luther while ostensibly struggling with
Garlstadt. His very first thesis is the antithesis to the first
of Luther's Ninety-five Theses. He contradicts Luther again
when he claims that the souls in purgatory are perfoVming
a postponed atonement for their church penances with which
they were in arrears at the moment of death, that death does
not liberate them from the jurisdiction of the" Church, and
that purgatory is not merely a stage in the inner develop-
ment of the soul. It is again Luther at whom he aims when
he says that buying indulgences for souls in purgatory does
not at all decrease^ the merit of those souls, nor diminish
their assurance of salvation. Against Luther, too, he affirms
that the merits of Christ are applied through the device of
indulgences. Last, not least, it is Luther whom he attacks
in his last thesis; for that was a point which only Luther
had touched in his "Resolutions," that is, in the treatise in
which he had explained his Theses against Tetzel. Carlstadt
had only lightly touched on some of these points, confining
himself almost entirely to a discussion of the powers of free
will in fallen man. Carlstadt had not referred at all to the

89) xvin, 712 £P.

8. STRIKING AT ANDREW AND AIMING AT MARTIN. 61

primacy of the Pope, and could not afford to do this, he
thought, because he held his position at the SiiftsMrche by
a simple grant from the Pope and could be deprived of it
by a simple order from the same power. Carjstadt-had in-
tended only to combat schola,stioism, and became quite un-
easy when Luther showed a disposition to make Eck's twelfth
thesis the chief battle-ground.^") "It must rouse the indigna-
tion of every fair-minded person," says Hausrath, "to see how
this sophist from Ingolstadt shams a duel with Carlstadt in
order to make side-thrusts at Luther." 91)

Thus the truce which Miltitz had patched up with Luther
was about to be broken a few weeks after it had been estab-
lished. For Luther could not consider himself bound by that
agreement after this new act of faithlessness on the part of
Eck. He first expressed his mind in an open letter to Carl-
stadt late in January or early in February : —

Our Eck has issued a schedule in which he noisily proclaims
with grand and proud words, as is his way, that he will meet you
in debate at Leipzig. I had conferred with him in your name at
Augsburg to see whether your controversy possibly could be com-
posed by a friendly and confidential meeting, and, as became your
dignity, you did not decline this. See now how beautifully this
man is mindful of his claim that he never changes, how, after
shamefully abusing you, he promises you a duel, but now turns
his frogs or gnats — I know not which — against me.

I had hoped that such highly important subjects would be
discussed as the grace of God, human misery, and the matter
which is the principal point in your controversy with him. Mean-
while Eck is shouting against poor me. In keeping with the
times he is playing a carnival prank: he digs up the foolish
questions regarding indulgence. Your subjects he treats as side-
issues, and does not touch them with the tip of his finger, as we
say. Perhaps the Holy Ghost foresaw this prank and trick, and
inspired the heart of the excellent doctors- of the University of

90) By the way, in this thesis Eels had changed the wording of
Luther's "Resolutions." Luther had denied that the Eoman Church
was over the other churches (super alias) ; Eck makes him deny that
the Eoman Churcli is superior to the other churches {superior alUs).
Moreover, Luther had Insisted on the supreme authority of the Scrip-
tures in this connection ; this Eck interprets to be a denial of the
authority of the Pope. (Bnders, I. c, I, 406.)

91) I. c, I, 288.

62 8. STRIKING AT ANDEEW AND AIMING AT MARTIN.

Leipzig to I'efuse you permission to settle this matter at their
school.

But, my dear Andrew, neither will I have you go into this
mean sham debate, not only because this pretty red-cheeked and
white-armed mask is attacking me and my propositions, but also
because your gifts and your disputation are of too high an order
to be degraded by a discussion of the foolish claims of this sophist
and of my assertions regarding indulgences, which should rather
be called negligibles. All teachers, even the scholastics, those
miserable authorities of Eck, admit, first, that indulgences are not
necessary for a Christian; next, that it would be better there
were none, and that this subject is as suitable for being treated
in writing or in a debate as a donkey for playing the harp. Nor
had I ever considered it worthy of a debate, if it had not been
necessary for the sake of Christ's people on account of deceivers,
vain talkers, selfish and greedy people, who must be reproved.
(Titus 1, 10. 7.) Nevertheless, these great and noble theologians
are worried so fearfully with these trifling and useless things and
strive to magnify their importance with such a display of anxiety
that one can see they believe the honor of their name and office
to he at stake. In the mean time they entirely neglect and put
aside the true object of theology and of the essential things —
not, of course, because they seek after lucre and glory, oh, no ! —
except in an incidental way, and provided these advantages are
not put too far from them.

However, God wills that I shall not be engaged in a worthier
occupation than to spend my life wrangling with tricky and
senseless sophists, with the noxious fawners of the Pope, and
with Romanizing tyrants. I shall therefore put my serious occu-
pation back gladly and cheerfully, and attend to the pleasantries
of these people.

Accordingly, my dear Eck, I do not charge you with a vanity
that is very plain, because you published your schedule for the
debate before you were assured of the consent of Leipzig, yea,
after you had learned from me that they absolutely refused their
consent. For you have indeed hoped to gather fame from the
air, that is, from a debate which is never to take place. I do
not charge you with treachery, lack of kindness, and conduct un-
becoming a theologian because you present theses to Carlstadt
which are foreign to the matter between you. Since you could
hope that he would not acknowledge them as relating to him,
you would again score an empty triumph over such a great man.

I do not charge you with having changed to most contemptible
fawning to the Pope, with having again produced a fiction about
me, and foisted new errors upon me which you have imagined,
while you pretend to do nothing of the kind. I submit to such

8. STRIKING AT ANDREW AND AIMING AT MARTIN. 63

treatment from a theologian. I only want to show that we see
through your miserable artifices and the fancies which you have
woven out of nothing, and we wish to remind you kindly to
employ a little subtler cunning in your insidious machinations.
Your boorish and sleepy smartness you may employ against your
foUow-sophists.

ileanwhile be a brave man and "gird thy sword upon thy
thigh, most mighty" (Ps. 45, 3). For since you have not ac-
cepted me for your peace as arbitrator, you may perhaps wel- I
come me as a combatant. Not that I have decided to gain a vic-
tory over yovi ; I only want to give you an opportunity — after
your victories in Austria, Lombardy, and Bavaria (at a disputa-
tion held at Landshut ) — to achieve the reputation of having
triumphed also in Saxony and Meissen, and to be hailed forever-
more as the great paladin of the empire. Then, after gaining
such great and eternal glory, you will be able to rest, according
to the saying of your master: Motion ceases when the highest
perfection in anything has been attained. I should prefer, how-
ever, if you would at last give birth to the wonderful beast
which you are carrying about with you such a long time, and
spit out the nauseous things that afflict your stomach, and thus
make an end of your imposing and grandiloquent threats.

But, my dear Andrew, I come back to you and beg that you
will join me in writing to the gracious prince, Duke George, and
the wise counselor at Leipzig, whether they would let us have
some public hall in which we might hold the debate. For I do
not wish at all to see the excellent doctors of the university bur-
dened with the dangerous office of judges of this debate, which
they have very prudently declined.

Yes, this is what we shall do : we shall call in two notaries to
whom both Eck and Luther, and others if they wish, may dic-
tate their arguments. I make this suggestion lest we, too, should
be charged with that contemptible vainglory and useless labor
which can be observed in Eck's disputation at Vienna; also, that
the shouting and violent gesticulation with which disputants
in our day are in the habit of raving and slaying the truth may
be subdued, and, on the other hand, that every point may be set
down in writing with the greatest modesty, and then be sub-
mitted to the Apostolic See, the bishops, and the entire Christian
world for their judgment.92)

Wlieii Beatus Etenanus read this open letter, he wrote
to Zwingli that no painter could have portrayed Eck more
strikingly than Luther had done in this letter.

92) XV, 811

64 8. STRIKING AT ANDREW AND AIMING AT MAETIN.

For many weeks Luther in Ms letters to friends expresses
his indignation and grief at this latest treachery of Eck. On
February 2 he writes to Egranus at Zwickau : —

Our Eok, whom I approached at Augsburg for the purpose of
inducing him to meet Carlstadt in public debate with Carlstadt
at Leipzig, in order that the controversy might be settled, has
at last consented. Listen now how this man acts : he seizes upon
my Theses and chews them up terribly, hut he ignores the party
with whom he has to do. One is tempted to think that he is in-
dulging in a carnival play. I shall be forced to enter into a con-
flict with this man about my Theses on indulgences. He is
a quite vainglorious, miserable little beast. He promises to hold
the debate after Easter. Some claim that he has been instigated-
by the Dominicans. The Lord's will be done ! I would have sent
you a copy [of Eck's theses], but I have only one, which was
sent me from Nuernberg.93)

On February 7 Luther published twelve counter-theses in
reply to Eck : —

1. Every day a person sins, and every day he repents, as Christ
teaches us, saying, "Repent." (Matt. 4, 17.) We must except as
not in need of repentance a certain righteous person who has
recently appeared, although the heavenly Vine-dresser purges even
the branch which bears fruit.

2. To deny that a person sins even when' engaged in a good
work, and that a sin is venial, not because of its nature, but
only by the mercy of God, or that there is sin remaining in an
infant even after baptism, is to tread both Paul and Christ
under foot. ■

3. We number with the Pelagian heretics any one who claims
that before loving righteousness a person may begin a good work
or repentance without sinning therein, and we shall prove even
with his master St. Aristotle that the claim is senseless.

4. God changes eternal punishment to a temporal by making
us bear the cross, which neither canons nor priests have any
power to impose or to remove, though, being led astray by vile
flatterers, they have dared to do so.

5. Every priest must absolve a penitent person from punish-
ment and guilt, or he commits a sin ; likewise a prelate sins when
he reserves secret processes without sound reasons, although the
practise of the Church, that is, of the flatterers, is opposed to this.

6. Perhaps the souls in purgatory do atone for their guilt, but
only in vilest rashness can the claim be set up that God demands
of a dying person anything beyond this that he die willingly, be-
cause this can in no wise be established.

93) XV, 2442.

8. STRIKING AT ANDREW AND AIMING AT MAKTIN. 65

7. It is indeed contrary to truth and reason that those who
are loath to die are deficient in love, and for that reason suffer
a horror of purgatory, provided truth and reason are the same
as the opinion of poor theologians.

8. We know that the claim is set up by poor theologians that
the souls in purgatory are certain of their salvation, and that
grace is not increased in them, but we wonder at these highly
learned people because they can produce for their faith no ground
that even seems plausible to the average man.

9. It is certain that the merits of Christ are the treasure of
the Church, and that we derive aid from the merits of the saints ;
but that indulgences are this treasure can only be claimed by
a vile flatterer, by Extravagances which conflict with the truth,
and by a few mythical acts and customs of the Church.

10. It is madness to say that indulgences are a blessing to
Christians, for they are in reality a makeshift for a good work.
A Christian must repudiate indulgences because of their abiise,
because Christ says ( Is. 43, 25 ) : "For Mine own sake" — not for
money ! — "I blot out thy transgressions."

11. It is certainly a dream of the very learned sophists and
harmful flatterers that the Pope can remit all punishments due
for sins in this and the future life, and that indulgences benefit
those who have not committed gross sins; but not the least proof
can be offered for this dream.

12. That the Roman Church is superior to all others is es-
tablished from the altogether lifeless decretals of the Roman
Popes that have appeared during the last four hundred years;
but the history of eleven hundred years, the text of the divine
Scriptures, and the decree of the Council of Nice, which is the
holiest of all, contradict this claim.94)

These theses Luther forwarded to Spalatin on the day of
publication, with the following remark : —

Our Eck, the little vainglorious animal, has published a sched-
ule for his debate with Carlstadt after Easter at Leipzig. In his
unreasonable and crooked way of acting the man wants to in-
dulge the hatred which he had conceived against me long ago,95)
and now rushes against me and my writings. He names one
person as his opponent in the debate, but attacks another, and

94) XVIII, 718.
^ 95) "When Eck noticed that Luther in his writings and sermons
vigorously opposed the Semi-Pelagian error (viz., that the human will
has the power to effect a person's conversion), he conceived a secret
grudge against Luther, and took occasion of the publication of Luther's
Theses against indulgences to comment on them sneeringly." (Loescher,
I.e., II, 62 f. ) This is a really keen observation and points out cor-
rectly the real cause of Eck's animosity.

DAU, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 5

66 8- STRIKING AT ANDREW AND AIMING AT MARTIN.

forces him to take up this matter. I am displeased with the
cowardly hypocrisy of the man, and have published a reply to
his theses, as you can see by the enclosed print. Perhaps Eck
will furnish the occasion for treating in a serious manner a sub-
ject that has so far been treated only in a playful way. This will
be unfortunate for the Roman tyrants.96)

To Eck, however, Luther wrote February 18 : —
I salute you and wish that you would at last stop seducing
the Christian people. I regret, my dear Eck, that by plain proofs
your friendship for me has at last been shown to be hypocritical.
You boast that you are seeking the glory of God, the truth, the
salvation of souls, the increase of faith, and yet you teach in-
dulgences, which is done to the neglect of truth, faith, salvation,
and the glory of God. Yours is such an obtuse head and such
a beclouded brain that, as the apostle says, you understand neither
what you say nor whereof you affirm ( 1 Tim. 1, 7 ) or, to speak
in terms of your logic, you do not see what the predicate states
regarding the subject. Either your hatred against me or your
greed of glory has driven you into this blindness. Accordingly,
when the whole world now calls you a silly person and a sophist,
you must attribute that to your immoderate conduct, not to me;
for I was so much concerned about you that I first suppressed
my Asterisks for your sake, and afterwards labored to reconcile
you with Carlstadt. Champion that you are for the grace of
indulgences, you are rewarding me beautifully for my labor : you
intend to debate the subject pf repentance with Carlstadt, and
at the same time you rave against me on the subject of indul-
gences, that is, on the remission of repentance, and thus under-
take matters that are entirely contrary to one another. I leave
you to refiect what sort of person he is who undertakes such
things. Well, I. desire that you fix the day for the debate; or
if you prefer, I shall fix it. All the rest we shall settle at the
time of the debate.97)

This letter of Luther passed in transmission a letter which
Eck wrote to Luther February 19. This letter connects with
Luther's letter to Eck from Leipzig. It furnishes the direct
pi'oof that Eck had all the time, while arranging with Luther
for a debate with Carlstadt, intended to make Luther his
real opponent.

Grace in the Lord, and I wish that you may be truly wise in
Jesus. It was very annoying to me that the very learned gentle-

96) XXI a, 14.5. A brief reference to the same matter occurs in
a letter to Spalatin of February 12. (XV, 2391.)

97) XXI a, 146.

S. STRIKING AT ANDREW AND AIMING AT MARTIN. 67

men at the University of Leipzig declined the task of listening
to us, and I did not see clearly what course to pui-sue, when the
most gracious prince Duke George of Saxony took action on my
petition to his university, so that they finally gave their consent,
as is shown by letters which I received to-day from the most
illustrious Duke, from the university, and from the [theological]
faculty. Accordingly, I have chosen June 27 for the opening of
the debate, but we are to meet on June 26, to determine who is
to be the first speaker.

Now, since Carlstadt is your champion, while you are the real
principal, by spreading these teachings throughout Germany which
in my poor opinion are false and erroneous, it is proper that you
appear, too, and either defend your teaching or disprove mine.
But how I would love to see you change your mind, show your-
self obedient in all things to the Apostolic See, listen to Leo X,
the vicar of Christ, not seek to be singular, but come down from
your opinion to the unanimous belief of the teachers, being as-
sured that Christ vrould not have permitted His Church to re-
main for four hundred years in such errors as you imagine!
You see from my schedule for the debate that I have drawn up
my theses not so much against Bodenstein as against your teach-
ing. Farewell, my dear Martin, and let us each pray for illu-
mination.98)

History has handed down her judgment on Eck: he is
"a bold, bad man."- With the 7ionchalance of impudence and
the air of innocence, as if what he does is eminently proper
and needs no justification, he faces Luther. This must ac-
count for Luther's vindictive speech to the man. Luther at
first seems non-plussed at the brazen audacity of his self-
appointed antagonist; then he sees through the vile trick
that is being played on him, and after that he does not spare
the trickster. Let it not be said that Eck thought he was
doing right, that he was defending what was dear to his heart
and his Church. That would merely make him out to be an
honest fanatic in an unrighteous cause, who does not scruple
about the means and methods to carry his point and gain his
end. He acted

With that dull, rooted, callous impudence
Which, dead to shame, and every nicer sense.
Ne'er blushed, unless, in spreading vice's snares,
She blundered on some virtue unawares.99)

98) Enders, I. c, I, 428 99) ChurcMll, Rosciad, I, 135.

68 9- THE HAND OP GOD.

9. The Hand of God.

Despite the resentment with which Luther viewed the un-
blushing perfidy of Eck, he had the grace to see also in these
sinister movements of his enemy the call of God summoning
him to a task far greater than he had imagined when he
published his Theses. It was a far-seeing remark which
Luther made to the Elector in the letter in which he an-
nounced his agreement with Miltitz : that agreement would
not only have brouglit literary peace to a few controversialists
and ease of mind to frightened churchmen, but it would have
put a quietus to a hopeful movement in behalf of vital in-
terests of true Christianity. A modern reviewer of Luther's
life-work has caught the significance of Luther's remark to
the Elector that, if unopposed by the priests and monks, the
thing which he had started would bleed to death. ■ Referring
to the period after the conference with Miltitz, this reviewer
says: "Things seemed to be going well with Luther, and in
some respects they were going well; the suspension of active
measures against him brought quiet, and in the quiet his
writings were circulated and read. All this was good, and,
as things turned out, only good. But in this quiet there was
danger. If it had continued, the interest in the Lutheran
controversy must have waned, and after a while ecclesiastical
matters would have settled down in their old channel, and
what became 'the Lutheran tragedy' might have turned out
to be only 'the Lutheran incident.' This result was favored
by political conditions. As a rule, when an important matter
has once thoroughly possessed the public mind, it does not
give place until it has gone on to its logical conclusion —
the exception occurs when it is thrust aside by some rival
interest. In this particular case the rival interest was fvir-
nished by the death of the Emperor if"") and the questions
connected with the choice of a successor. The affairs of the
Empire might have supplanted the affairs of the Church, and

100) The fifty years' reign of Maximilian I came to a close Janu-
ary 12, 1519, five days after Luther's conference with Miltitz at
Altenburg,

9. THE HAND OF GOD. 69

wken Europe had once become involved in the great national
contests that soon followed, there would have been no time
or inclination to return to Luther's aflfairs. Luther was right :
'If let alone, the thing would bleed to death,' and it seemed
to be in danger of being left alone. For the present, at least,
Luther was safe. He was under the strong protection of the
Elector, and the Pope was too busy to care for him — his
principal enemy could not disturb him, and he was pledged
to peace. Let the peace last and the tide would ebb, the
opportunity would pass. But the peace did not last." 101)
For now comes blundering Eck, the little "Euhmtierlein,"
as Luther called him. But behind Eck, in the darkness with
which He veils His awful, but always beneficent designs,
stands God. Luther's eye of faith saw Him as in a glimpse,
and saw God beckoning him onward. He bowed his head
and obeyed. Already on February 3 he wrote his friend Lang
at Erfurt : —

Our Eck is planning a new war against me, and, if Christ
gives me the grace, you will see me do what I have long medi-
tated, viz., I will at last rush at this Roman brood of vipers with
a book. So far I have only dandled and played with the Roman
affair, although they set up a grievous wail as if I had written
against them with intolerable seriousness. 102)

Now he writes to Staupitz under date of February 20 : —

My Eck, the treacherous man, is again dragging me into a new
affair, as you see from the enclosed [open letter to Carlstadt and
Eck's schedule]. Thus the Lord takes care that I shall not be
idle. But, Christ willing, this debate will turn out disastrously
for the Roman rights and customs which Eck regards as his staff
of support (Is. 36, 6; Ezek. 29, 6). 103)

To Scheurl Luther wrote on the same day : —
Our Eck, who has hitherto fairly concealed his rage against
me, has at last revealed it. See what sort of man he is. But
God, who is in the midst of the gods [the authorities on earth],
knows what He intends to bring forth out of this tragedy. In
this affair we shall not serve our interests, neither Eck his, nor
I mine. It seems to me that the counsel of God is being carried
out in this. I have often said that what I have done heretofore

101) Vedder, I. c, 88 f. 102) XV, 2468. 103) XV, 2444.

70 9- THE HAND OF GOD.

has been mere play; now I shall at last act in earnest against
the Roman Pope and the Roman arrogance.104)

To anotlier prominent person at Nuernberg, Pirckheimer,
Luther wrote on the same day : —

I have quite thankfully received the artifices [the schedule
for the debate] of my very suave Eck. I am sending you what
I have composed against him. My aim, as, you 'see, is directed
against the holy canons, that is, against the unholy perversions
of the Holy Scriptures.' I have long wished for such an oppor-
tunity, but upon my own initiative I did not like to come out
with this matter. The Lord is drawing me, and I follow not
unwillingly. If the Roman court is in mourning over the dying
indulgences, what will it do when, God willing, the decretals ex-
pire? Not that, confident of my strength, I am raising a shout
of triumph before the victory is gained, but I put my trust in
the mercy of God, who is wroth at the traditions of men. I shall
maintain and acknowledge the authority and majesty of the Pope,
but I shall not tolerate the perversions of the Holy Scriptures.105)

These remarks show that Luther's mind was being con-
centrated on Eck's twelfth thesis, the primacy of the Pope.
In a peculiar manner Luther's attention had been called to
this subject to which he had not given much thought pre-
viously. In August he had been waiting at Wittenberg for
the decision of the Curia, and had resigned himself to the
thought that he would be delivered up to Rome and martyred
for his Theses. In those days a manuscript had been handed
him in the form of a letter which opened up a new world to
him. The document had been prepared for the Diet at Augs-
burg ; in trenchant terms it warned the Germans against sub-
mitting to the tax for the war against the Turks. On Sep-
tember 2 Luther wrote to Spalatin, who was at Augsburg at
the time : —

There has arrived here a very intelligently written letter from
the city of Eome,106) which sharply criticizes the levy of new
taxes for a war against the Turks. It is plain that this tax was
devised by the Florentines, the greediest people under the heavens.

104) XXI a, 149 f. 105) XXI a, 151.

106) This letter is the treatise Exhortatio riri cujusdam doctix-
simi ad principes, ne in decimae praestationem consentiant (An Ex-
hortation by a very learned gentleman to the princes not to consent
to the levying of the tax). The author was canon Frederick Fischer of
Wuerzhurg, who had lately returned from Italy.)

9. THE HAND OF GOD. 71

They are making use of the Pope's good nature to fill their
maw. . . . You may not know that the cardinals are the am-
bassadors of avarice, but it is surely so, if this report is true.107)

German literature had been enriched in those days with
many a treatise on the same subject; on many a diet the
German nation had voiced its grievances against the extor-
tions of the Roman Curia, but of this Luther knew nothing.
All the more reason why the letter which he had received
gave him food for reflection. It also roused the patriot in
Luther. On September 1 he wrote to Staupitz : —

I shall give free scope to my thought and pen, and show that
there are people in Germany who see through these Eoman tricks.
The sooner I can do this, the better it will please me. Too long
and too grievously these Romanists with their endless intrigues,
turns, and pranks have mocked us as dunces and clowns. They
do not so much deceive us with their cunning as they openly and
impudently make fools of us.108)

But Luther was not ready yet to believe all that he had
read in Fischer's letter. His eyes were opened at Augsburg
at the conference with Cajetan and his Italians. One day
Urban of Serralonga, of the Cardinal's suite, had come into
his lodging and pleaded with him to recant his Theses. He
had advised Luther not to enter into an argument with the
authorities of Rome. He might think and believe what he
pleased, but he must not attack the Pope's power. Luther
relates the episode in a letter to Spalatin of October 10 and
says : —

Then he proceeded to make the most stupid suggestions. He
declared frankly that it was permissible to preach lies, if that
will bring money and fill your coffers. He said the Pope's power
must not be disputed, but you must extol him so highly that you
declare, by one nod the Pope can abolish anything, even things
that belong in the Creed, especially in my present contention.
He said a few other things, which I will communicate to you
orally. But I turned down this Sinon, who has not been v/ell
trained in the Pelasgian art,109) and he went.UO)

107) XV, 2399. 108) XV, 2395 f.

109) Sinon is a wily Greelj, who appears in Virgil's Aeneid, II, 79.
106. 152.

110) XV, 2414 f.

72 9. THE HAND OF GOD.

Henceforth, in Luther's view, the Germans are "the living
antithesis to the Italians and the Eomanists." rrom Augs-
bnrg he writes to Melanchthon, October 11 : —

Italy has been hurled into an Egyptian darkness that can be
felt. All of them are completely ignorant of Christ and Chris-
tian affairs. And yet we have them for lords and masters of our
faith and morals. HI)

These reflections might momentarily recede to the ' back-
ground amidst his multifarious other duties, but Luther did
not get rid of them. The impressions which he had received
were deepened by other writings which came to him, and
which painted in similar colors the corruption of the Roman
Curia, and the extortion which it practised on Germany.
When the records of his conference with Cajetan were pub-
lished soon after his return from Augsburg, Luther was led
into a more searching study of the essence of the papacy.
His mind became flooded with the most surprising thoughts.
On December 11, 1518, he writes to Link : —

I am sending you the records of my conference at Augsburg;
they are couched in sharper terms than the Legate may have
expected, but my pen will give birth to still greater things. I do
not know whence these thoughts come to me; in my opinion, this
business, far from being ended, as the Roman grandees hope, has
hardly been begun. I shall send you my trifles, in order that you
may see whether I rightly suspect that the true Antichrist, as
Paul depicts him 2 Thess. 2, 3 ff., is ruling at the Roman Curia.
I think I can prove that at present he is worse than the Turk.112)

The tax for the Turkish war troubled the Saxon rulers
sorely; through Spalatin they asked Luther for a theological
opinion on Scriptural grounds. The mere questioning of the
propriety of this tax was significant; it showed what a deep
impression such treatises as Fischer's had made on the Ger-
mans. Luther denied the right to levy this tax in a sermon
which raised a sensation. He relates this in a letter to
Spalatin December 21, and says: —

I hold that if we must fight the Turks, we ought to begin
fighting at home. It is useless to wage carnal wars abroad while
v/e are being defeated in spiritual wars at home. Moreover,

111) XV, 555. 112) XV, 2430.

9. THE HAND OF GOD. 73

I know of no war either in tlie Old or the New Testament that
was waged with human strength, and that did not result un-
happily and inglorioualy. If the outcome was good, the war was
waged from heaven, as I could show by abundant proofs. Now,
since the Roman court surpasses the tyranny of all the Turks, —
for with such abominations it fights against Christ and the
Chtireh, — and since the clergy is deeply merged in avarice, vain-
glory, and lewdness, and the condition of the Church is every-
where quite miserable, I have no hope of a good war or of a happy
victory. As far as I see, God is warring against us; He must
first be overcome by tears, prayers from a pure heart, holy liv-
ing, and pure faith.113)

The entire winter 1518/19 was a season of grave thinking
for Luther. A momentous inward development was taking
place in him. From all sides he was urged to be lenient and
to yield, and we have already seen that at the conference with
Miltitz he did yield. The chasm that yawned between the
old theology and the new had only been glimpsed; few men
saw to the bottom of the contrasts that were being revealed
between Christ and Antichrist. Luther himself had not
sounded those depths, but ,he felt instinctively as he pon-
dered the mystery of iniquity that had been reared in the
temple of the Lord that a serious conflict was arising for
him, and with the impatience of strong characters he would
sigh that the battle might be on soon.

To a mind thus racked with painful discoveries came
the provocation embodied in Eck's twelfth thesis. Catholic
critics of Luther profess themselves shocked at the insincerity
of Luther at this time. Says a writer in the Catholic En-
cyclopedia: "While the preliminaries of the Leipzig Dispu-
tation were pending, a true insight into Luther's real atti-
tude towards the papacy, the subject of which would form
the main thesis of discussion, can best be gleaned from his
own letters. On 3. March, 1519, he writes Leo X: 'Before
God and all His creatures I bear testimony that I neither
did desire, nor do I desire, to touch or by intrigue under-
mine the authority of the Roman Church and that of your
Holiness.' (De Wette, I, 234.) Two days later (5. March)

11.3) XXI a, 130.

74 9- THE HAND OF GOD.

lie writes to Spalatin: 'It was never my intention to revolt
from the Eoman Apostolic chair.' (De Wette, I, 236.) Ten
days later (13. March) he writes to the same: 'I am at
a loss to know whether the Pope be Antichrist or his apostle.'
(De Wette, I, 239.) A month before this (February 20) he
thanks Scheurl for sending him the foul Dialog of Julius
and St. Peter, a most poisonous attack on the papacy, say-
ing he is sorely tempted to issue it in the vernacular to the
public. (De Wette, I, 230.) 'To prove Luther's consistency
— to vindicate his conduct at all points as faultless, both in
veracity and courage — under these circumstances may be left
to myth-making simpletons.' (Bayne, Luther, 1,457.)" 11'')

We shall now introduce an American simpleton who does
the very thing which Bayne scouts. He is not a Lutheran,
and does not believe that Luther was "the docile, peace-
loving, engagement-keeping man, provoked into controversy,
dragged unwillingly into disputation by Eck, which he him-
self afterwards claimed to be, and has been so often asserted
by others in his defense." But he does not hold Luther guilty
of the charge of hypocrisy at this period. "The 13th of March
Luther said, 'I am studying the decretals of the Popes, pre-
paring for my disputation, and (I whisper it in your ear)
I do not know whether the Pope is Antichrist or his apostle.'
It was only ten days before that he had written his respect-
ful, submissive letters to the Pope. What shall we think of
this ? It would be easy to say that Luther was acting a double
part, playing fast and loose, blowing hot and cold. It would
be more charitable, and probably truer, to say that his con-
duct was that of a strong man agitated by different motives;
now reverence for long established order and duly constituted
authority, now love of truth; at one time shrinking from the
confusion and trouble that he saw just before him, at another
conscious that he was working the work of God. One point
is clear: he saw no inconsistency between utmost hatred of
the Pope and most reverent obedience to him. He said in
a letter to Spalatin: 'I am content that the Pope should be

114) IX, 443 f. The references to De Wette correspond to the
St. Louis edition as follows : XV, 705. 2445 ; XXI a, 155. 149.

10. OBSTACLES. 75

called and be lord of all. What is that to me, who know that
even the Turk is to be honored and endured for the sake of
the power?' He would submit to the most tyrannical rule,
as submitting to God, who permits, even ordains, that rule.
We must interpret his conduct from his own point of view.
Let us remember that few men have been subjected to such
a trial as that through which he was passing; also, let us be-
lieve, if we can, that he was seeking the right way, but was
not yet certain which was the right way; that his was the
hesitation and vacillation of the eagle before he has chosen
finally the direction of his flight." H^)

10. Obstacles.

Luther's open letter to Carlstadt had contained the sug-
gestion that Carlstadt's debate be dropped, and that Luther
take his place and debate with Eck in some public hall at
Leipzig. Luther retained the place chosen by Eck because
through Eck's schedule Leipzig had already been announced
to the world as the place of the debate; he suggested a hall
instead of the university because he knew the opposition of
the Leipzig J;heologians to the debate. How his suggestion
was misunderstood in one point and resented as a whole is
shown by a letter which the rector, professors, and doctors
of the university addressed to Duke George February 15 : —

At your Grace's written command we have granted permission
to tlie honorable and learned doctors, John Eck and Andrew Carl-
stadt, to debate. Thereupon the said Dr. Eck reduced to writing
his conclusions on Dr. Martin Luther's propositions concerning
grace, in order to give public notice of the debate with Dr. Carl-
stadt at your Grace's university. Straightway Dr. Luther, com-
pelled by this to mix in the debate, thinking to defend and up-
hold Dr. Carlstadt, publishes a letter in which he announces,
contrary to your Grace's written command and the decision of the
whole honorable university, that the said debate is at an end,
and, nevertheless, without greeting your Grace or the university,
he publicly and in writing announces that he will debate at your

115) Tedder, I. v., 90. See also Kolde, I. v., I, 193 £E.

76 10. OBSTACLES.

Grace's university. And as the said Dr. Martin touches the legal
rights of the Pope's holiness, the said debate would be thereby-
hindered, and every one would be deceived by having the truth
thus abandoned. Wherefore we beg that your Grace will see to it
that Dr. Luther should not announce debates without your Grace's
or the university's consent. 116)

Four days later the -university sent the following repri-
mand to Luther : —

Recently, while celebrating the nativity of our holy Redeemer
in accordance with Christian custom, John Eck, the excellent
Doctor of the Holy Scriptures, wrote to the most gracious prince
Duke George, to this university, and to the Doctors of Theology,
choosing the theological faculty as a Lesbian rule to be judge in
his controversy, requesting them most urgently to permit him to
debate with Dr. Carlstadt in our far-famed university. Inasmuch
as by this investigation through the disputation the truth is
to be defended against its calumniators, and, as it were, brought
to light out of that deep ditch of W|hich Democritus speaks, we
have, as far as we could, acceded to his request, and granted him
a place for the debate. Dr. Eck has relied on our good will, and
being resolved to institute a scholarly debate with Dr. Carlstadt
at this place, he intends to unfurl his banner, march out of the
camp of Pallas, and meet your champion, as he calls him, in open
battle. To this end he has published a schedule for his disputa-
tion, which is like a banner. You think that he has thereby
offered battle to your Theses. Since he does not propose to yield,
you have by a published letter challenged him on your part to
a debate. ^Ye are greatly surprised that, contrary to our actual
resolution, you write that we have refused Dr. Eck permission to
hold his debate; but we are still more surprised that you spread
the news that your disputation will be held at our university at
Leipzig, when nothing of the kind is known to us, and you have
obtained no such permission either from us or from our most
gracious prince, the benign Maecenas of our university. Since
yours seems a bold action, which, -we are told, you abhor other-
wise, we request you urgently not to drag us into trouble, since
we know nothing about your arrangement, and we ask you to
recall your announcement, if you will, or at least to sound your
retreat from the battle by publishing an answer to this letter
\ which we urgently request, and that you wait until you have
j obtained from us the permission to hold your debate.117)

On the' same day (February 19) Eck blandly wrote to the
university : —

116) Pres. Smith, I. c,-., I, 162 f. 117) X\, 837.

10. OBSTACLES. 77

I was somewhat troubled when I heard that you did not care
to hear the burden of hearing and judging us, although I re-
ceived your letter late, that is, on February 4. But now I am
made more cheerful, since I have learned that you have changed
your opinions, for which I render you immortal thanks. Con-
cerning the time of the debate, I should like it to begin on
June 27, for reasons given in another letter to your university,
for I shall be obliged for urgent reasons to be away from our
university of Ingolstadt then anyway. ... I am writing to Luther
to be present, for there is just as much reason for his presence
as for that of Carlstadt; for, in my poor opinion, both of them"^
are equally in error.118)

Here are interesting cross-purposes : one of the principals
to tlie debate declares: Luther must come! while one of the
hosts says: He shall not come! It is amusing to note what
a bold, masterful air the same men can assume to Luther
that had ignominiously gone down before his pig-headed
Grace, Duke George. To add to their confusion and dis-
grace, on the same day on which they issue their heroic
reprimand to Luther, Eck, whom they foster as their pet,
writes them that he has done the same thing for which they
have reproved Luther : he has taken it upon himself to write
to Luther that he must be at the debate. "What did these
Leipzig gentlemen now do to Eck? Nothing. Oonsistency,
thou art a jewel!

Meanwhile Luther had come to the conclusion that Carl-
stadt's debate could not be recalled, and that he must take
•part in it. Accordingly, he proceeded in an orderly way to
obtain the consent of the proper authorities. On February 19
he wrote to Duke George : —

My devoted poor prayer and humble service to your Grace.
Serene, high-born Prince, gracious Lord! The worthy Dr. Eck
writes that he .has applied to your Grace for permission and
gracious sanction to conduct a debate at your Grace's university
at Leipzig against the worthy Dr. Carlstadt. However, although
Dr. John Eck proclaims a debate with Dr. Carlstadt, he has made
only a slight attack on the theses of Dr. Carlstadt, while he falls
with all might upon my propositions. It becomes me, therefore,
to meet this presumptuous giant and defend my position, or let
myself be better instructed, Wherefore it is my humble peti-

118) Pres. Smith, I. c, I, 165.

78 10. OBSTACLES.

tion to your Grace, for the love of the truth, to graciously allow
such a debate. For the worthy doctors of the university have
just informed me that they have given their promise to Dr. John
Eck, though I had heard previously that they had refused. How-
ever, they lay it up against me that I have published my debate
before I had asked permission of your Grace. I did this relying
on your Grace, and I hope that your Grace will not refuse me,
especially since permission has already been granted to Dr. Eck,
as he boasts. I pray your Grace to kindly forgive me. May God
mercifully spare and uphold your Grace. Amen.119)

The Duke's answer on March. 4 said : —

Worthy, learned, dear, and pious Sir! We have read and
noted all the contents of the letter you have written us regarding
the debate which we have granted permission to Drs. Eck and
Carlstadt to hold at our university at Leipzig, also your excuse.
Since Dr. Eck has informed us by letter that he has come to an
agreement with Dr. Carlstadt regarding the debate to be held at
Leipzig with our permission, we did not wish to refuse him.
Now if you will also come to an agreement with him and apply
to us again, we will then, as is proper and becoming, let you
know our prudent and gracious answer. This in answer to your
letter.120)

Acting on the Duke's suggestion, Luther wrote to Eck,
April 5 : —

I am >vriting again, dear Eck, for the reason that the most
gracious prince, Duke George of Saxony, has replied to my letter,
saying that he would give me a definite answer to my petition
to be permitted to debate with you at Leipzig after he had been
assured that I had come to an agreement with you; for he states
that he has received letters from you with reference to Carl-
stadt, but not with reference to me. Now, since Carlstadt rightly
despises your treacherous pranks, and perhaps will not condescend
to debate with you, moreover, since you are afraid because you
have already felt his strength by his reply to you, — still, after
you have deceived the Duke by fighting against another person
than the one you attacked, it will behoove you now to inform
either the Duke or me whether you are pleased with this new
arrangement, in order that we may not leave the Duke in suspense
any longer. Try, therefore, to send me your reply soon, in order
that I may obtain a definite answer [from the Duke], for the
consent of the university I have in writing. Farewell, and change
at last from a sophist to a theologian. 121)

119) XXIa, 148. 120) XXIa, 154, 121) XXIa, 174.

10. OBSTACLES. 79

The available documents do not afford suiScient informa-
tion regarding the period between Luther's letter to Duke
George and his letter to Eck to enable us to verify Luther's
statements in this letter regarding the possibility of Carl-
stadt's receding from the debate and regarding the written
consent which Luther had received from the university.
Cross-purposes still seem to be at play during this period.
For Luther seems not to have received Eck's reply as speedily
as' he had expected, and this caused him to write another
letter to Duke George on April 28 : —

My poor prayer and honest endeavor always at the devoted
service of your Grace. High-born, serene Prince, gracious Lord!
1 have received your Grace's letter and kind answer, and have,
according to your Grace's suggestion, offered an agreement to
Dr. John Eck, but have so far waited in vain for his answer. In
the mean time the said Dr. Eck has by a published notice sum-
moned both Dr. Carlstadt and myself, and, besides, has taunted
us in provoking terms, and may eyen now be singing a song of
triumph over us, as I expect your Grace has been informed.
Accordingly, I address to your Grace a devoted humble prayer
like the previous one, to graciously grant me permission to hold
this debate. And as this affair has endangered my life and
caused me much enmity, I pray your Grace for God's sake to
grant me a safe-conduct to and from the place of debate. For,
while venturing into this business, I must not tempt God by
despising ordinary hiunan help. I shall always humbly requite
your Grace with my poor prayer to God.122)

Duke George answered this letter May 7 : —
Worthy, learned, dear, and pious Sir! We have received your
second letter and noted the contents. You will have to bear in
mind that, if you wish to debate with Dr. Eck, you will have
to have Dr. Eck's answer and definite consent. Accordingly, we
wrote you in our previous letter that you must come to an agree-
ment with him. When we receive a request from both youand
him to grant you permission to hold your debate, we shall return
you a prompt answer. Here is where we rest the matter, and
this is what we have to say in answer to your last letter.123)

It appears, then^ that Eck, after summoning Luther to
meet him at Leipzig, was doing nothing to facilitate Lu-
ther's coming. What shall we think of Ms conduct? Why,

122) XXI a, 162. 123) XXI a, 163.

80 10. OBSTACLES.

it is tlie habitual Eckian perfidy. Being still in suspense
whetlier lie could go to Leipzig, Luther addressed a third
letter to Duke George on May 16 : —

Ever my poor humble prayer for your Grace! Gracious, high-
born Prince and Lord! I humbly pray your Grace for God's sake
not to take it ill that I write to your Grace again. Your Grace's
last letter has caused me great trouble and terror. For I fear,
or I imagine, that I may have somehow displeased your Grace,
and now have in you an ungracious lord. I am not conscious of
anything, and it greatly grieves me.

Your Grace has given a promise to Dr. Eck and your consent
to hold his debate without requiring Dr. Andrew Carlstadt to
inform you of his willingness. Yet you will not grant me the
same privilege without a letter from Dr. Eck, while the latter in
a public notice plainly declares that I shall also have to debate
with him at Leipzig, and thus compels me. I informed your
Grace of this and wrote to Dr. Eck in accordance with your
first letter. I do not know what else to do in order to obtain
your Grace's permission, and I cannot thinlc otherwise than that
I have fallen into disgrace with you. Noav, my most gracious
Lord, I know well that the world has stood before my disputa-
tion, and that it will remain after it. I have not invited my-
self to this debate, but have been forced into it by Dr. Eck.
Now I pray for God's sake that your Grace will inform m.e, and
forgive me if I have in any way offended; I shall gladly make
amends. For I cannot compel Dr. Eck to write you the letter
which you require, but I shall write him once more and ask him
to do so. Commending your Grace to the favor of God, I ask
your Grace to kindly forgive me.l24)

Immediately after finishing this letter, Luther wrote to
Spalatin : —

Duke George has answered me twice without giving me per-
mission to hold my debate, tliough I had informed him that Eclc
has both by private letters and public notices compelled me to
answer him. Now, why does he insist that Eck must intercede
for me when he did not hesitate to give Eck the permission, and
did not make the same demands in the case of Carlstadt? What
abnormal doings are these! I am sending you his two letters,
and am writing him now for the third time. Please advise me
what to you seems best to do in this matter. 135)

The Duke's and Eck's action were indeed abnormal —
"ein Unding"; it was plainly calculated to provoke Luther

124) XXI a, 169. 125) XV, 2446 f.

10. OBSTACLES. 81

and prompt him either to desist from the debate in disgust,
or commit some rash act that would have incriminated him.
But his patience was to be tried further. Duke George
answered Luther's last letter May 23 : —

Worthy, dear, and piovis Sir ! We have read the letter which
you have addressed to us regarding the permission for the debate,
and noted its contents. We know of no displeasure which we
have conceived or bear towards you. True, many things have
been reported to us about which we would not dislike to speak
with you, but we shall defer this until you come to us. More-
over, it is no small surprise to us why you insist so strongly on
this debate after you declared formerly that this is not a good
subject for a, debate, and after you stated that the doctors of
the theological faculty had refused their permission for the de-
bate. It is true that no request has come to us from Dr. Carl-
stadt; however. Dr. Eck informed us by letter that he had
reached an agreement with him regarding the said debate. Now,
if this is done in your case, viz., if you agree with one another,
as according to your writing you are trying to do, we shall return
you a definite answer as we wrote you in our last letter.126)

It was now but a month till the debate must begin; in
little over a fortnight Luther must start for Leipzig, and
still he was kept in this tantalizing uncertainty. On June 6
he wrote to Lang : —

I am now publishing my proofs against that hateful thir-
teenth 127) thesis, being urged to do this by the jealousy which
will not admit me to the debate where I would answer it. Though
I have written three letters, I have not obtained a definite answer
from Duke George. That fellow Eabe from Leipzig 12S) has gone
to Rome to spread lies about me, and to bring back more abomi-
nable reports. But I shall be present, and at least oiler to make
answer. To Carlstadt everything is permitted.129)

On June 10 the following safe-conduct arrived at Leip-
zig: —

At the desire of Dr. Carlstadt, we, George, Duke of Saxony,
grant to him and to those whom he may bring with him, for the
debate to take place at Leipzig with Dr. Eck, as long as he may
be with us and until he returns to his own home, free and safe
conduct.130)

126) XXI a, 172. 127) This is explained in the next chapter.

128) Hermann Rab had been made a Doctor ol Theology at Leip-
zig in 1512 ; since 1517 he was Inquisitor haereticae pravitatis.

129) XV, 2475. 130) Pres. Smith, Z. c, I, 195.

DAn, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 6

82 10- OBSTACLES.

"And to those whom he may bring with him" — that is
the only answer Luther ever received from Duke George on
his repeated requests. "Under the wings of Carlstadt," he
said, he had to go to Leipzig. The Duke, whose heart was
set on having this debate at his university, had nevertheless
purposely and systematically snubbed Luther.

But this was not the only obstacle. In view of the under-
standing which he had reached with Miltitz at Altenburg in
the first days of January, and which he had reported to the
Elector, Luther had now to explain to the latter his reason
for desiring a debate with Eck. He wrote to the Elector
March 18 : —

My poor, humble prayer is ever for your Electoral Grace!
Most serene, high-born Prince, most gracious Lord ! Your Elec-
toral Grace's chaplain, Magister Spalatin, has sent me certain
statements which the Honorable Charles von Miltitz, commissary
of His Holiness the Pope, has communicated to your Electoral
Grace concerning me, viz., that I am henceforth to remain quiet
and start nothing new. This is in accordance with our agree-
ment at Altenburg. God knows that I was altogether in earnest
and glad that the game was to be ended thus, and as far as
I am concerned, I have kept the agreement, so much so that
li have passed over the reply of Silvester Prierias, although it
contained much that was provoking to me. I have also, against
the advice of my friends, treated with contempt the wanton
ridicule of many of my adversaries, although, as the Honorable
Charles well knows and has admitted, I promised to remain silent
only on condition that my opponents, too, kept quiet. However,
since Dr. Eck, without giving me warning, attacks me with the
plain intention of bringing about, not my disgrace and dishonor,
but that of the entire University of Wittenberg; moreover, in-
asmuch as many respectable people think that he has been bought
to do this, — I have thought it unbecoming to treat the treach-
erous trick of this weathercock with contempt, and to desert the
truth in the face of such ridicule. For if I am to be muzzled
while everybody else may open his mouth wide, your Electoral
Grace cart easily see that I would then be assaulted even by
persons who otherwise would not dare to look at me. Now, I am
heartily disposed to follow obediently the faithful counsel of your
Electoral Grace and to remain absolutely quiet, provided they
also keep quiet; for I have more things to do and am not seek-
ing any personal gratification in this business. Otherwise I pray
your Grace not to lay it up against me if I speak out ; for I can-
not with a good conscience forsake the truth. Although the

10. OBSTACLES. 83

proposition to be debated concerns His Holiness the Pope, I had
to follow the lead of my opponent in debarte, and had to main-
tain the opposite view, however, always reserving my submission
and obedience to the Holy Roman See. May God graciously spare
your Electoral Grace! Amen.131)

Tlie appeal to fairness in this letter made an impression
on the Elector; he refrained from any interference with
Luther's debate. No doubt, he saw too that the affair was
incidentally becoming a test of strength between his uni-
versity and that of Duke George.

The most serious obstacle, however, that was thrown in
Luther's way came in the form of a letter of the Po^e,
who on March 29 summoned Luther to appear before him at
Eome : —

To his beloved son JIartin Luther, of the order of Eremite
Brethren of St. Augustine, and professor of theology.

Beloved son, — Greeting and the Apostolic Blessing! We were
.highly pleased to learn from the letters of our beloved son Charles
Miltitz, our nuncio, whom we had sent to our beloved son, the
noble Frederic, Duke of Saxony, that what had been incorrectly
written or said by you had not been written and said with the
intention and purpose of causing any offense to us, or to the
Apostolic See, or to the Holy Roman Church, but In answer to
a certain monk who provoked you by proclaiming certain in-
dulgences by order of our beloved son Albrecht, the Cardinal Priest
of the title of St. Chrysogonus.132) We also have learned that,
while you were attacking him too violently, you went further
than you had intended, and exceeded the bounds of decency and
truth, and that, after mature reflection, you have with bitter
grief regretted and bewailed what has happened, and are now
ready to recant all this in writing and confess your error to the
princes and others to whom your writings have come, and to
refrain from such things in the future. We have learned that
you would have recanted in the presence of our Legate, if the
Legate had not been inclined to deal too harshly with you and
show too much favor to the said monk, who, as you claim, has
been the cause of your error. ' Considering now that the spirit is
willing, but the flesh is weak, and that in the heat of passion
many things are said which have to be corrected on second
thought, we give thanks to Almighty God who has condescended
to illumine your heart and to prevent the believers of Christ by
your authority and your teaching from being drawn into grievous
and pernicious errors in matters which concern the salvation of

131) XV, 720. 132) The Archbishop of Mayence.

84 10. OBSTACLES.

souls. Acting, therefore, here on earth in the place of Him who
has no pleasure in the death of the sinner, but that the sinner
turn from his way and live, we accept your apologies in a fatherly
and benevolent spirit, which we accord to all men who are engaged
in any science, especially to the Doctors of Holy Scripture. We
desire to see and hear you personally, in order that you may safely
and freely make before us, the Vicegerent of Christ, the recanta-
tion which you were reluctant to make before our Legate. Ac-
cordingly, upon the receipt of this letter you may start on your
journey, and come to us without dela,y. We hope that you will
put aside all hatred and cherish a conciliatory spirit, and that,
filled not with any passion, but only with the Holy Spirit, and
confirmed in love, you will so consider what makes for the praise
of Almighty God, that we shall be glad that you have been an
obedient son, and that you may be glad to have found us a pious
and gracious father.133)

It is true, this letter never was delivered to Luther. It is
likely that it was sent to Miltitz to be forwarded to Luther,
and that Miltitz, as a wise diplomat, retained it in view of
the changed conditions in the empire consequent upon the
death of Maximilian I. But Miltitz now became active
against Luther himself. He had at first carried out his
agreement with Luther so far as to summon poor Tetzel
before him; and make him the scapegoat for the Pope's and
the Cardinal's sins. The miserable friar had left Miltitz's
presence utterly crushed, and hied himself to the Dominican
convent at Leipzig, where he kept himself concealed and
slowly pined away of a broken heart. But Miltitz had not
raised a finger against Eck. On May 3, however, Luther
received a letter from him which summoned him to come to
Coblenz at once. On the same day the Legate wrote to
Spalatin and to the Elector, strongly urging them to speed
Luther's departure and promising him the kindest treat-
ment.!**) With Miltitz there was at Coblenz at this time
Cajetan with his train of Roman attendants. He had re-
mained in Germany after the Diet of Augsburg, and was
framing the papal policy for the next Diet. Luther -was not
caught in this snare. In the letter to Spalatin of May 16, to
which we referred before, he says : —

133) XXI a, 158. 134) XV, 726. TS.'S. 731.

10. OBSTACLES. 85

That ridiculous man, Charles Miltitz, admits that he has re-
ceived no order from Rome concerning me; still he summons me.
Jloreover, it is not he that issues the summons, but the arch-
bishop, and the summons is nevertheless that I am to appear be-
fore the Cardinal. I wonder whether these men are crazy.
I shall write him; meanwhile I ask for your advice.135)

To Miltitz Luther wrote May 17 : —

Greeting. Dear Sir, I received your Excellency's letter ad-
vising me that it would be to my advantage forthwith to repair
to Coblenz. Please listen to me patiently. In the first place,
when we came together at Altenburg, my presence did not seem
to myself necessary; for as my books, in which I most clearly
opened my mind to all, were published, I thought it sufficient
if, after weighing my opinions, articles should be determined on
for me to revoke, and reasons should be assigned for the recan-
tation, so that it might appear efficacious and praiseworthy; for
otherwise men would say that it had been extorted from me by
force, and the last state should be worse than the first. I am
of this opinion still.

But even if I ought to come, you yourself can see how foolish
those who have charge of this affair think me, since you write
that the mandate has not yet come from Rome, and that the
Archbishop does not summon me in virtue of such a mandate.
I am not sure that the mandate will arrive, especially in this
crisis of the 'Empire, nor am I sure, should it arrive, that the
Archbishop would receive it. How can I, therefore, trust my-
self to such a doubtful and perilous situation, or how can so
poor a man as I get the necessary money? I have already spent
so much in this matter that I have wearied my patrons and
am ashamed to ask for more, not to mention the fact that during
the interregnum no one can give a safe-conduct, particularly to
a man with as many enemies as I have.

Furthermore, the great debate which the most reverend Lord
Cardinal refused to allow me to hold at Augsburg is coming off
at Leipzig. For I am challenged by John Eck, and should I de-
cline, in so just a cause, to meet him, with how much shame
I should I brand not only myself and all my friends, but our most
illustrious Elector and our whole prder and my university! In
this debate the whole case will be examined by many learned men
impartially, with good arguments on both sides, which could
not be the case before either the Archbishop or the Cardinal.
So that it is better that your proposal should wait on the debate
than that the debate be -hindered. . . .

But come! Even if all these difficulties were met, yet would

1.-35) XV, 2446.

86. 10. OBSTACLES.

I not wish to have the cause tried by the Cardinal. I do not
want him present, for he is not worthy of it. He tried to harass
me from the Christian faith at Augsburg, wherefore I doubt
whether he is a Catholic Christian himself. If I had time,
I would write to the Pope and cardinals and expose him, un-
less he should retract all his rank errors. I regret that the
legates of the Apostolic See are men who try to destroy Christ.

Thus, Sir, I think that I have justly excused myself from
coming. I might add that a certain spy, armed with many letters,
has been here, seeking first you and then me, and he excited
a lively suspicion that he was preparing some violence against
me; iinally he was obliged to flee, lest he should be ducked in
the Elbe, as he almost was and would have been had not we
prevented it, for men thought that he was your agent, especially
after we heard that you were lingering in Germany, though you
promised us to go straight to Rome. So it happened that although
I exonerated you from this charge, yet I saw that there were
snares all around for me to fear. . . .

If what you write is true about having to come after me
with papal letters, may God grant that you come safely! I am
very busy, serving many men, and am not able to lose time and
wander about without causing loss to many. Farewell, excel-
lent Sir.136)

Yes, during all this exciting correspondence Luther was
"very busy." E"ot only did he carry on his work at the
university and preach to the people of Wittenberg, but he
even conducted a lengthy controversial correspondence with
Prof. Dmigersheim of Leipzig on the subject of the primacy
of the Pope,l3'^) and wrote a lengthy defense of his position
to the monks at Jueterbogk, who had raised eight charges of
heresy against him. 138) On March 27 he completed his Ex-
position of the Psalms, which he dedicated to the Elector,l39)
and for which he asked the Elector six weeks later to bring
him a black and a white cowl from the fair at Leipzig.l^O)
He probably needed these to make a respectable appearance
at the debate. Last, not least, he exchanged flattering let-
ters with the prince of the Humanists, Erasmus, during this
period, i''!)

136) XV, 726. Translation by Pres. Smith, I. c, I, 185 f.

137) XVIII, 49S. 502—528.

138) XVIH, 1362 ff. Tills was completed May 15.

139) IV, 206. 140) XXI a, 185. 141) XVIII, 1582. 1586.

11. FINAL PREPARATIONS FOR THE DEBATE. 87

11. Final Preparations for the Debate.

On December 29, 1518, Eek, as we have seet, had pub-
lisbed his schedule for the debate at Leipzig. This schedule
was accompanied by twelve theses directed against Carlstadt.
The publication of Luther's open letter to Carlstadt with the
twelve counter-theses, and Luther's complaint that, while pre-
tending- to fight Carlstadt, Eck had attacked him, induced
Eck to change his challenge. On ilarch 14 he republished
his schedule with the twelve theses in a new edition. This
new edition contained an additional thesis, which had been
inserted between the sixth and seventh theses. Eck claimed
that this thesis had accidentally dropped out at the time of
the first publication. The total number of the theses thus
was raised to thirteen, the original seventh thesis becoming
the eighth, and so on. The critical twelfth thesis, on the
primacy of the Pope, henceforth is the thirteenth. This new
schedule Eck labeled "against Luther and Carlstadt,'' naming
Luther as his opponent in the first place.

Eck's new seventh thesis reads : —

He errs who denies that the free will of man is lord over
man's actions, claiming that man is active only in reference to
^what is evil, while he is passive in reference to what is good;
nor is he without error who holds in opposition to the scholastics
that faith is destroyed by every gross sin; nor is he without
very great error who preaches recklessly that a, person is ab-
solved by faith, regardless of his repentance.M2)

There are so many possible ways of explaining the omis-
sion of this thesis that we shall not suggest any one in par-
ticular, but leave it to the indulgent reader to choose the one
that suits him best. Any one will serve if a person has the
good will to apply it.

Against the new seventh thesis of Eck, Luther, on Feb-
ruary 7, issued the following counter-thesis : —

He who prates that free will is lord over man's actions,
whether they are good or bad, or who dreams that man is jus-
tified not by faith alone in the Word, or that faith is not de-
stroyed by a gross sin, does not know either what faith, or
repentance, or free will is.l43)

142) XVIII, 71.3. 143) XVIII, 719.

88 11. FIJSTAL .PREPARATIONS FOR THE DEBATE.

Eck had called the enlarged republication of his schedule
his Disputatio and Excusatio. In the literature of the day
it is referred to simply as "Eck's Excusatio." This republi-
cation was accompanied by the following letter : —

To the Prelates beloved of God, Caspar, Abbot of Wessobrunn,
and John, Provost at Polling, his highly revered patrons, Eck
wishes happiness in the Lord.

Reverend fathers! It is not unknown to you what I did be-
cause I believed that the new doctrine of M. Luther, Augustinian,
departs from the path of truth, nor what followed upon the be-
ginning which I had made when Andrew Bodenstein entered into
the affair. I have always hated that style of writing which in-
dulges in violent attacks; I have, accordingly, resolved to test
my views before the most learned men, under whose judgment
I would take captive and make a slave of my reason, because
I know that self-esteem is a mother of errors, also that singu-
larity brings about a person's overthrow, ■ as Bernard says; and
lastly, that it is folly not to believe people who are wiser than
ourselves, as Boethius says. Although the opportunity for a de-
bate had for a long time been cut off by the adversary, we have
at last agreed to meet at the University of Leipzig. Accordingly,
following the direction of Aurelius Augustine, I have comprised
the sum of the coming disputation in a brief schedule. I did
this in great hurry, so much so that I overlooked the thesis on
free will and faith, which should not have been omitted. I sent
this schedule to brother Martin Luther, who is a great carper,
and he soon spread it among tlie people by means of an open
letter to his champion. I leave it to the decision of my readers
to say whether this open letter is as modest as Eck would have
made it. But since people of this sort, as St. Gregory assures
us, love only those who are silent, I shall neither be stirred up
nor offended by his biting letter. Would to God that I were
deemed worthy of the glory of the apostles, vis., to suffer shame
for the truth and the Lord Jesus. But I see that I must be con-
cerned about the weak, lest they are offended; for if they see
no excuse from me, they may easily side with my detractor.

Luther is indignant because I have directed n>y attack against
him, though I had promised to debate with Dr. Bodenstein at
Leipzig. Being Altogether an 01ibrius,l-t4) he has said that he
does not know whether I let my frogs or my gnats loose upon
him. \Yhile making a great noise about his trifles concerning
indulgence, he says, I had treated the propositions of Dr. Boden-

144) The Roman consul Olibrius was a crank and the subject of
many a scurrilous street-song.

11. FINAL PKEPARATIONS FOR THE DEBATE. 89

stein as a side-issue and hardly touched them "with the tip of
my finger. But it will not escape the observation of the reader
what an impudent charge this is. For Bodenstein is Luther's
champion, and has, not in a scholarly, but in a malicious manner,
rejected three of my annotations to Luther's Theses on Indulgence,
and has threatened to do the same with the rest. Accordingly,
I have not without reason touched upon the subject of indul-
gences in three theses. This subject, on which so many master
minds have labored, Luther calls his jokes, as if it were some-
thing contemptible. I know that Jerome says that jokes in the
mouth of a priest are blasphemies. As regards this disputation,
however, I have been of the opinion that men who are fighting
tooth and nail for the same thing need not be kept separate.
Accordingly, when the most serene prince, Duke George of Saxony,
my most gracious lord, and the council of the honorable uni-
versity of Leipzig and the theological faculty had consented to
our debate, — for the spirit of Luther no longer influenced them
to decline hearing our cause, — 1 have in a public notice chal-
lenged Luther as the principal defendant in the case, either, to
defend his positions or to overthrow mine. I have informed the
theological faculty of Leipzig of my action. But I will not suffer
Luther to spirit Andrew Carlstadt away from the battle-ground
secretly, since the latter is so brave in writing calumnies and
singing his song of triumph before the victory. He refused to
meet me at Eome, Paris, or Cologne, and gave as his reason the
great expense and the long journey. And would he decline the
battle and_ withdraw behind his ramparts now that I have fol-
lowed him to the door of his home country? That would be
a conduct becoming a degenerate and cowardly soldier. How-
ever, if he should have become wise in the mean time, if he
should recant his errors and follow the Roman Church, I would
heartily kiss him as a friend, yea, as my second ego. But I have
laid the ax to the root of the tree when I published six theses
against Dr. Bodenstein and sent him the seventh in writing.
I think I have comprehended the sum of all our writings in
these theses. I have touched upon these subjects not as side-
issues nor in a treacherous manner, but I have opposed my theses
to Bodenstein with a theologian's singleness of heart. The propo-
sitions, however, which I have directed against you, Luther,
I have not forced upon you, nor raised false charges in them
against you, but I could put my finder on all the places where
you have uttered these enormities. Would to God I had not
found them in your writings ! '

He charges me with vainglory because I published my schedule
before I was sure of the consent of the doctors at Leipzig. I ad-
mit this ; but ^what great guilt do I thereby incur ? Ah, he says :

90 11- FINAL PREPABATIONS FOR THE DEBATE.

"After you had learned from me that they had absolutely refused
you the permission." That is surely a lie made of whole cloth.
My schedule was printed at Augsburg before January, while I was
traveling to my home. I have a letter from Luther, dated Leip-
zig, January 7, which I received February 8. Observe, most
reverend fathers, that my schedule was printed before Luther
wrote me his letter. I need not mention that on account of the
distance the letter was slow in reaching me. I think you under-
stand now what reason there was for speaking about my "un-
happy cunning artifices,'' my "imaginations formed out of noth-
ing," my "subtle art," and my "sleepy prudence."

I shall submit to their pleasantries about me and their ridi-
cule. Far be it from me to be boastful. If I did debate when
a young man at some universities in Germany and Italy, I did
this to train my intellect. Suppose I am what Luther and Boden-
stein think I am: a hair-splitting sophist, a poor theologian, an
arch- Aristotelian, a scholastic, a debater; suppose I know noth-
ing and they know all; I know that I have scant resources;
suppose I am a flea, while they are, the one a Goliath, the other
a Hercules; suppose, they are what they consider themselves to
be, my unhappy teachers, whom I regard as happy, although. they
seek to dishonor me in every way, — I shall suffer all this, if they
will only admit that I am a believer and a Christian. I know
that I am an unprofitable servant, even if I had done all that the
Lord had commanded me; how much more, when I perceive that
I have not done it. But I shall gladly sacrifice everything that
I have received by the grace of God to protect the truth of our
faith and of the Catholic Church, and with the strength that
God gives me I shall fight against these errors and exterminate
them. For Gregory says: No calumnies must move us to depart
from the true way and the sure rule.

But Luther claims that my friendship for him has been hypo-
critical. I admit that, because of our scientific studies, I entered
into friendly relations with him before I had seen him, as fre-
quently happens among scholars; but I did this only on the rec-
ommendation of our mutual friend, the very learned Christopher
Soheurl, a very honest jurist. Does he, then, believe that I can
be a friend to a person who is fighting outside of the one Chris-
tian Church? St. Jerome says that it has been his diligent care
to have the enemies of the Church for his own enemies. I love
that man, but, with Augustine, I hate his errors. Is this doing
something monstrous to protect the truth and the Pope, and to
lead my neighbor out of error? I have seen and read with great
grief the arrogant treatise in which he relates his transactions
at Augsburg before the Legate of the Apostolic See, and his appeal
to a council, and with many a sigh I have culled from them a few

11. FINAL PBEPARATIONS FOR THE DEBATE. 91

statements. I should have expected more soberness and patience
beneath the black cowl. Would to God that he had been, or still
might be, a pupil in modesty to the martyrs Eogatianus and
Cornelius, who, as St. Cyprian relates in his letters, declared that
contempt of the clergy leads to heresy. And in another place
he says: Self-appreciation, proud conceit, and contempt of supe-
riors are the beginnings of heretics and the origin and doings
of evil-minded schismatics. That is the way to depart from the
Church, to erect an unholy altar outside of the camp, to cause
rebellion against Christian peace and divine order and unity.
For — says he, writing to Pope Cornelius — from no other source
have heresies and schisms sprung than from disobeying the priests
of God. How well would it be if Luther would apply to himself
what St. Bernard advised the citizens of Pisa to do with reference
to Pope Honorius : Honor him who is your father and the father
of the universe. But Luther is fanning dead embers into a flame,
and makes new weeds grow after the old cutting, as Ambrose
says. May the Almighty God, who has undertaken to be with
His Church unto the end of the world, illumine the hearts of
believers and give us His peace!

To conclude, as I have promised, I shall debate with both
opponents in behalf of the truth of our faith and for the pro-
tection of the Apostolic See, with the help of Christ, not in some
secular building or in a hidden corner, but at the greatly flourish-
ing University of Leipzig, in the presence of the most learned
fathers of this school. And I shall speak with becoming modesty,
in order that the truth may be preserved and not destroyed. I am
pleased that in accordance with the rule of Augustine and Jerome
the entire debate is to be taken down by reliable notaries, and
that it shall then be published to the City of Rome and the
entire world.

Of these matters, my dearest patrons, I wished to inform you
and, through you, the entire Christian world, since you esteem
the sacred truth very highly, revere the head of the Church, the
vicegerent of Christ, the Pope, and with your brethren pray with-
out ceasing for the welfare of the Church and of the See of Peter.
In behalf of Christ and Peter I commend to you, together with
myself, this cause of the truth. 115)

Luther accompanied the publication of his thirteen
counter-theses with the following letter "to the dear
reader" : —

My Eck is angry, dear reader, and he had dedicated to the
Apostolic See another schedule, which is filled with his wrath

145) XV, 816 fE.

92 11. FINAl PREPARATIONS FOE THE DEBATE.

and with accusations against me. To his former theses he has
added another, a very angry one, which would afford a beautiful
opportunity to reply to his abuses once for all time, if I did not
fear that out of it there might arise an obstacle to the coming
debate. Well, there is a time for everything. For the present
let this suflBce.

By citing the sayings of a few of the holy fathers, he accuses
me of being an enemy of the Church. I take this to be his mean-
ing, dear reader: The term "Church" signifies his notions and
those of his champions who have labored in the cause of indul-
gences. For he is a person who consecrates things to the Apostolic
See. He speaks after the manner of the men whom he regards as
his champions, and who use tlie words of Scripture and of the
fathers as Anaxagoras used the elements: after they have con-
secrated them to the Apostolic See, the words change their real
meaning and mean anything they please. It is wonderful! They
may be turned from any meaning into any other; they are also
apt to mean what these men imagine in their feverish dreams,
or anything that they rashly spout forth in the impotence of their
womanish spite. Yea, their knowledge is of so little service to them
that they do not even rightly understand the good things they
have learned, and, as the apostle says ( 1 Tim. 1,7), they under-
stand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm, that is,
they have not learned how to connect the subject with the predi-
cate or the predicate with the subject in a declarative clause. We
hope that in the coming debate he will cite other testimonies
equally apt, in order that the children, too, may be given a chance
to laugh. I had hoped that from the letter of Erasmus,146) the
master of all knowledge, and from the invincible Defensio of
Dr. Carlstadt, Eck would have learned to know his narrow-minded-
ness; but his patience conquers everything: he is content to dis-
please everybody if only he pleases himself and his champions.

He has charged me with gross impiety by calling me a heretic
and a Bohemian, and says that I am "fanning dead embers into
flame." He says this in accordance with his rule of modesty,
or as a function of consecration by which everything becomes
consecrated without having any other ointment applied to it than
the poison of his tongue.

However, I let you know, dear reader, that I do not accept
the evil name which he has given me, and that, as regards the
monarchy of the Roman Pope, I do not despise the respectable
consensus of opinion of so many believers in Italy, Germany,

146) Erasmus's letter to Eck of May 15, 1519 (Weimar Ed.), made
Jearned Europe laugh because of the good-natured raillery, fine irony,
and the consummate slsill with which the famous Humanist showed up
the hollow pretension of Eck's learning.

11. FINAL PREPARATIONS FOR TUB DEBATE. 93

France, Spain, England, and other countries. There is only one
thing that I ask of the Lord: that He will never let me say or
think anything that pleases Eok, such as he is at present, lest,
for the sake of maintaining human free will, I might ridicule
Christ, the Son of God, and lest, for the sake of the Eoman
Church, I might deny that Christ rules in India and in the Orient,
or — speaking likewise in riddles for the benefit of this ingenious
manufacturer of riddles ! — lest I open again the sewer of Con-
stanzll") and start a new martyrdom in the Church because of
old murders in Africa. For in order not to be offended at his\
vicious riddle, you must know, dear reader, that some number '
with the articles of John Hus this one, that the papal primacy '
of the Bishop of Rome is derived from the emperor, as Platina '
clearly states. But I have asserted that this primacy is proven,
not by imperial, but by papal decretals. For in the well-known
verse 148) the Lateran Church of Rome itself describes the extent
of its authority, saying that both by papal and imperial decree
it is the mother of churches, etc. How now? Even this church,
in the view of Eck, will become Hussite, and fan dying embers
into flame. Again, since the above verse is sung by order of the
Pope, with the consent of the cardinals, of entire Rome, and the
Church universal, it is not surprising that Eck has grown tired
of these old embers, and is desirous to perform a new act of
consecration, of offering to the Apostolic See a new holocaust by
incinerating at once the Pope, the cardinals, and the Lateran
Church. God be praised that there remains at least one Eck who 1
is of a. Catholic mind, the solitary persecutor of the idea of/
standing alone, all the rest having become corrupted by the poison'
of Bohemia. But why should we wonder that sophists do not
know these historical matters, when they do not even understand
their own simple statements? I have, indeed, never treated this
subject, nor have I thought of making it the subject of a debate.

147) The "sewer of Constanz" is the Council wliich was held in
that city 1414 — 1418, and which sentenced Hus to be burned.

148) Luther here refers to these lines:

Dogmate Papali datur et simul Imperiali,
Quod sim cunctarum Mater, Caput Ecclesiarum.
Hinc Salvatoris, Coelestia Regna datoris,
Nomine sanxerunt, cum cuneta peracta fuerunt.
Sic nos ex toto conversi supplice veto
Nostra quod haec Aedes tibi, Christe, sit inelyta Sedes.
The meaning is : By papal and at the same time by imperial decree
it is given me to be the mother of all, the head of the churches. There-
fore, when everything was completed, they consecrated me by giving
me the name of the Savior, the bestower of heaven. With all our
heart, then, we aslt in fervent petition that this house of ours, may be
a famous seat for Thee, O Christ. — The reference is, of course, to the
formal dedication of the completed church-building.

94 11. FINAL PEEPARATIOKS FOE THE DEBATE.

But Eck, who has been long incensed at me with the most mali-
cious spite, and who knows that such theses are odious, has hoped
to rouse indignation against me at least by this point, since he
despaired of victory as regards the other points. For he has
learned to slay the young lion while the old lion is looking on,
as the saying is; that is, he wants to turn a disputation for the
discovery of the truth into a tragedy of hatred.

But let them accuse me as much as they will; let them con-
secrate their flatteries to the Apostolic See, to its throne and
footstool, yea, let them consecrate things also to the apostolic
money-chest, since that pertains most to this business of the in-
dulgences and the papal primacy; let them leap around the altar
of their Baal; let them call him with a loud voice to rouse him,
for he is a god, he is making verses, he is engaged, he is gone
afield, he is sleeping, etc. 1 Kings 18, 26 f. It is sufficient for
me to know that the Apostolic See neither intends nor is able to
do anything against Christ. In this discussion I shall not be
afraid of the Pope nor of referring to his name, least of all of
such featherlets and manikins.149) I am concerned about one
thing only, viz., that I may not be deprived of my Christian repu-
tation to the injury of the entire pure doctrine of Christ. For
in regard to that I would have no one expect me to be "patient,"
and I would not have Eck look for modesty either under the
black or white cowl. Cursed be the praise of that wicked modera-
tion of Ahab who allowed Benhadad, the enemy of Israel, to es-
cape ! ( 1 Kings 20, 34. ) For in this matter I would like to be
not only what grieves Eck, a champion in biting polemics, but
also invincible in devouring, that I might make one mouthful of
all the Silvesters, Civesters, Cajetans, and Ecks, and the rest of
the false brethren who are fighting against Christian grace, as
Isaiah expresses it, chap. 9, 12. Let them frighten others with
their flatteries and consecrations [to tlie Pope] : Martin de-
spises the priests and sacrificers to the Apostolic See.

On the other matters I shall speak in the debate and after.
But Dr. Andrew Carlstadt, too, who has already conquered the
error of Eck, will come not as a fleeing soldier, but will con-
fidently meet this dead lion that has been cast at his feet. Mean-
while we shall let his miserable conscience enjoy his fictitious
hope of victory and his empty boastful threats. Accordingly,
I add to my theses a thirteenth in opposition to the wrath of Eck.
God will have to bring something good out of this debate which
Eck has soiled with so much evil, malice, and abuse.

Farewell, dear reader. 150)

149) In the original tliere is at this place a pretty pun on papam
— pappos — puppas.
15D) XV, 821 tf.

11. FINAL PREPARATIONS FOR THE DEBATE. 95

Lastly, Carlstadt, tlie original cause of the debate and tlie
real principal on the Lutheran side, issued his theses for the
debate as follows : —

1. Since Dr. John denies that the believers'' entire life is re-
pentance, and that there is always need of repentance, he is a Jew-
in the skin of a Christian, for he cries: If the righteous be the
son of God, let him come down from the cross, and he. does not
know that this life is a season in which we must expect to bear
the cross.

2. In like manner he draws a false conclusion, thus: The life
of believers does not signify the sacrament of penance, hence, not
repentance.

3. To bring out Dr. John's knowledge, also this proposition,
drawn from Cyprian and Bernard by conjecture, will be main-
tained: The entire life of believers has the sacrament of penance.

4. Dr. John regards it as something curious that I have turned
from that repentance which has been commanded to penances
which are scourgings and punishments that one suffers, but he
does not wonder at the penitent prophet who is prepared to
undergo scourgings and pain, nor does he wonder at himself for
not knowing himself.

5. Since Dr. John boldly denies that the righteous repent, he
denies what the Church confesses. He is also under the ban of
heresy for claiming that the righteous, while still in this life,
are not really sinners. How will a person who is under Such
a ban defend the Church?

6. Little sins are true sins that must be atoned for and re-
pented of.

7. Every little sin which man does not regard is damnable;
it is, therefore, not sufficient not to have consented to sinning,
but one must acknowledge that real sins are referred to in such
passages as: "Who can understand his errors?" and: "Cleanse
Thou me from secret faults."

8. Daily sins which are neither recognized as real sins here
on earth, nor atoned for by rendering due satisfaction for them,
are mortal sins. At the vain objections of sophists I shall not
feel astonished.

9. By setting up scholastic teachings which have been in con-
troversy four hundred years against the older truth. Dr. John has
instituted a new statue of custom and limitation which was un-
known in former times, viz., that errors and sins also can be made
a rule. Look to it, then, ye oldest of the fathers, and thou,
Augustine, for you have not overcome the Donatists, but enmeshed
them by a false reasoning.

10. Furthermore, ye apostles, prophets, and Thou, Christ the

96 11- FINAL PEBPARATIONS FOE THE DEBATE.

Savior, beware, for by improper speech you have led us to be-
lieve that vre are sinning even in every good work.

11. Free will, before a person has received grace which is in-
fused by the Holy Spirit, is eflScacious only for sinning. But this
earthly fact my deceiver does not believe; how, then, will he
believe when I speak of heavenly things?

12. Yea, our will, when not governed by the divine will, ap-
proaches the more rapidly to wickedness, the more eagerly it is
bent upon acting.

13. By his principle, which is a stock argument of debaters.
Dr. John can do what is in his power, viz., he can remove the
bar, or obstacle, to grace, that is, he can soften the stony heart,
which contradicts Ezekiel and the thesis of Ambrose already cited'.

14. Since Dr. John does not see that a good work is entirely
of God and God's operation, he is still looking at the Scriptures,
and understanding them, with the veil of Moses over his face.

15. Finally, everybody can easily see what theological learn-
ing Dr. John possesses, for in his Ghrysopassus he has collected
1 do not know how much ragged material regarding predestina-
tion, and yet he denies that the passages which treat of pre-
destination may refer to works that are to be rewarded. '

16. Dr. John cites against me the saying of Bernard: Take
away free will, and there will be nothing left that can be saved,
in order to prove that free will can accomplish very much. He
has altogether misread Bernard, and reveals sufficiently with what
penetration he examines the church fathers. He renders himself
suspected to all students as a falsifier.

17. Dr. John Judaizes when he declares that salvation depends
on the canons in so far as a person must do what they command
by virtue of his free will; pursuing the law of righteousness, he
thus sets up his own righteousness. 151)

Of all the papers that were prepared for the debate this
is the most difficult to understand, because of the peculiar
brevity of style which- Oarlstadt afPects, and because of his
far-fetched references and obscure allusions. These theses
were published April 26, with the following, letter : —

To the excellent Dr. John Eck, the defender of metaphysical
theology and our Magister, Andrew Carlstadt wishes grace and
a better mind in the Lord.

If I did not love, revere, and honor the most holy father and
lord in Christ, Leo, by the providence of God the tenth Pope by
that name, and the holy Church of Christ, I should not, my in-
vincible debater, consider your rather coarse and boorish impu-

151) XVIII, 714 ff.

11. FINAL PREPARATIONS rOR THE DEBATE. 97

dence worthy of tMs reply. I shall, therefore, reply only that you
may know that I am, I hope, not only a most devout reverencer
of the name of the Pope, but also an obedient member of the
body of the Lord, redeemed Avith the precious blood of Jesus.

But you object that for this very reason you, too, had taken
upon yourself the task of this defense, and have thundered against
me the arguments of Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, and
Gregory, as if you had unleashed a pack of terribly barking dogs
against me. But I perceive your tricks and treacherous pranks
quite plainly. From a distance you are shooting your light ar-
rows against the Wittenbergers, but you are wounding at the
same time the teaching of Christ, and while attacking us, you
are perverting, mutilating, yea, destroying the Holy Scriptures,
for in many ways you are dragging in the heavenly wisdom to
prove your false conclusions and Skyings of the heathen, so that
simple people, who cannot make an exact test of such learned
matters, become infected with your poison. For you cite the
church fathers to people who are not keen enough to see what
is to be proven and what not, and who imagine that it is suf-
ficient to collect an abundance of testimonies without pondering
what their force is in an argument, or whether they are apt to
remove scruples and cut the knotted fetters of doubts with which
they are bound.

Therefore, dear reader, I ask you to be mindful of the tribunal
of God and the judgment, and not to side either with me or my
opponent, considering not the persons of the combatants, but the
subject which they debate, and the testimonies with which they
are armed. Yea, I would remind you, dear reader, that as I am
to speak in the fear and reverence of God, so you must hear me
in a like spirit. Dr. Eck is not citing the church fathers in an
honest manner, and is not without malice, but is laying traps and
snares. The deceitful hypocrite cites the testimony of Cyprian,
Augustine, and others; but are the good things which he cites
true? If true, are they good? Are they, as a rule, cited in the
proper place? Barely. Does he always say only what is true?
Oftentimes he does not. He says good things, but they are not
to the point. With one salve he wants to cure everybody's sore
eyes. His cunning ways are suspicious. The theses which he
proves are not in doubt with either of us, since both I and he
take our stand on them. But by these arts he blinds the eyes
of those who do not understand the issue, and leads them to be-
lieve that we are at variance in a well-known matter about
which there can be no controversy. In the principal points, how-
ever, he is weak and easily defeated. This vainglorious fencer
desires nothing more than to achieve a little renown with the
semi-learned or unlearned, for he is so desirous of glory that he

DAU, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 7

98 11. FINAL PEEPAEATIONS FOB THE DEBATE.

is not ashamed to snatch it by force and childish pranks. In
Vienna this brawler was miserably discomfited; his heart is still
weak and sore from the stabs which he received from his oppo-
nents; but with his tongue he hissed at his conquerors, dissem-
bling his wounds. However, no sooner had he picked himself up
out of the dirt of the arena and slunk away than he composed
a eulogy, comforted himself with having achieved a victory, and
proclaimed his fictitious praise to people living many miles from
the place of combat. Several persons have affirmed this who heard
him at Vienna flinging about his metaphysical notions.

The fox may leave his skin, but not his ways. This vile
logician is still afflicted with the itch ; he is looking for some one
to rub against, some person whom he may injure and infect. Buf
it seems to me his malady should be treated not with a sound
arm, but with thorns of juniper. In my writings which I pub-
lished against this fox it will be seen that I did not run away
from a trial before the university at Rome or before other learned
men. Yet Eck maliciously dares to slander me, saying that I will
not submit to the judgment of the Church, and that I am a sedi-
tious person. I have submitted to the judgment of any one who
has diligently and carefully examined the church fathers. The
first page of my defense shows this; still this mean talker is not
ashamed to say that I have refused to be judged by many. I do
not deny that such fruitless and vain quarreling, which Paul for-
bids, is displeasing to me, as it naturally ought to be; for in
such a, contest the parties do not seek after the truth, but each
makes a great noise and wants to capture trophies ; he scores
a victory by hook or crook, even. with painted guns. There was
a time when I, too, thought, like my little opponent, that when
truth gained a triumph, I might remain silent as though I had
been defeated. But now I consider it disgraceful and pernicious
not to side with the truth at once. That exceedingly wicked
woman Calpurnia was the cause by her shameless libel, and by
the unrest which she caused a magistrate, that a law was issued
that no wanton charges should be lodged with the praetor, but
honor and decency must be respected. But my iippudent blusterer
and brawlers like him raise such a womanish tumult and uni-
versal disturbance, and respect the office of theologians so little,
that they utterly disregard decency. I yield to wordy quibbling,
however, with contempt and declaring my dissent; but I gladly
take part even in minor discussions by which the fruitful truth
is investigated and hidden meanings are discovered, provided the
discussion is taken down by notaries. For if it is not taken down
in writing, the opponents difi'er shamefully in their claims. By
this device a bit is placed in the mouth of bold men, making it
difficult for them to lie.

11. FINAL PREPARATIONS FOE THE DEBATE. 99

I am surprised that Dr. Eck has slapped together so many
laws and statutes — the best he has omitted — that relate to his
oath, by which paltry matters are raised to great importance for
his side, and that, while he made his collection, it has not occurred
to him that the holy fathers ordained that weighty matters were
tp be set down in writing before judges, so as not to leave any
room for men's malice. Secular and minor affairs relating to
temporal things are embodied in written accusations; against
these the defendant contends with objections and counter-argu-
ments; they are made still plainer by double and triple counter-
arguments, yea, with other legal helps, until the matter is thor-
oughly explained and all mystery removed; then at last the
litigation is definitely ended by the decision of the judge. And
now, in a sacred matter of spiritual and quite eminent import,
that concerns the salvation of souls and the majesty of God, you.
Dr. John, would have for judges men that are only supplied with
ears, but are not keenly discerning judges, or such as glance
superficially at a matter, hurry through with the case, and do
not investigate anything thoroughly; men who, without having
understood even the beginning of the case, and without having
had doubtful points established and obscure points made clear
to them, will render a decision favorable to you on a mere sem-
blance of right; and this thoughtless and stupid judgment is to
go out under my name in opposition to the divine truth, and is
to decide our important and necessary controversies. I am quite
certain that our subjects will not suit the bad metaphysical
theologians, because, although they are Christians, they hear but
with the ears of pagans and mingle everything they hear with
their gall. Let these keep back their judgment and wait till the
end of our discussion, lest pure and honest theologians complain
of their having listened sleepily and rendered a wishy-washy
depision in ignorance or haste. As arbiters of our contest I de-
sired the excellent teachers of the University of Leipzig, my
superiors, whom I always seek to honor, however, with this under-
standing that the matter remain undecided until we have closely
and thoroughly considered it and brought to light the hidden
meaning of Scripture. For during our contest we shall have to
carry our investigation quite far, because I see that you have
taught heresies, that is, things which plainly contradict the Holy
Scriptures.

Now, what purpose is served by your criticizing and insulting
me before the whole world as a runaway soldier, and by dressing
up your lies so skilfully? It is a shame to play such coarse
tricks and to tell such palpable lies. Suppose I had chosen to
withdraw from this sophistical fencing-match and to remain
within my walls, would I on that account have to be called a timid

100 11- riNAI. PBEPAEATIONS FOE THE DEBATE.

and cowardly soldier? Is he a timid and cowardly soldier who
remains within the walla and looks with contempt on the tumult
of the enemy, repelling attacks only by watchfulness? A brave
man makes no great ado, conducts himself quietly and properly,
does not act unseemly and dishonestly, does not brag, and either
conquers the evils of war or submits to them. On the other hand,
it is a sign that a person has become disheartened when he per-
mits threats and every faint noise of a tumult to scare him. And
could there be a greater proof of timidity and cowardice than
for the defendant of a just cause to grow pale at the words of
a miserable windy brawler? They say in war that those fight
with twofold force who are fighting in a just cause. Acc6rdingly,
I do not surrender to the enemy, nor do I trust in my bow, but
in the arm of the Lord, who alone gives man a courageous heart.
Since you have so fiercely and violently provoked me, I shall
come and attack Goliath, and in order to.be all things to all
men, I shall make a strong effort to defeat the perverter of
Scripture.

Finally, this sharp thinker says that he is going to fight for
the Holy See after the manner of wasps. Ask him, dear reader,
whether I ever had or could have had any complaint to raise
against the Apostolic See. Does it mean to insult the Church
when you honor its command ? Does it mean to insult the Church
when you exalt everything the Church needs for her holy service
and sacrifice to God? Does it mean to insult the Church when
you investigate, rightly discern, and eagerly defend the purity of
the Scriptures and the sincerity and truth of the church fathers?
See what a champion Eck is: he has the Church on his side,
and pretends to come to its rescue; he simulates a defense to
which he is not authorized. miserable condition of the Church,
when it has not even a protector who firmly maintains his cause!

the danger to the Iamb when the wolf comes to its aid! This
is the sly protector who wears sheep's clothing to fool the sheep
and seek his own profit. the horrible audacity of the man
•w'ho forces himself upon the untroubled Church for its protec-
tion! Who has hitherto defended the Church? And who will
defend it after you are dead? What the emperor of the world
scarcely dares to undertake, that this bold emperor of theology
undertakes.

My dear John, if you can persuade me that you can drive out
error with the fire of your abuse and the plaster of your own
errors, I shall believe that you will destroy error. As for me,

1 shall honor the Roman Pope, to whom I am especially indebted,
and the holy Church with word and deed, and shall, as much as
I can, do away with this mess of Eck, though the knave has been
unfair and has proposed theses of which he knows that I do not

11. FINAL PREPAEATIONS FOK THE DEBATE. IQl

question them, while I have preferred to select from my defense
against Dr. John such conclusiqns as each of us understands in
a different sense. I desire for my judges neither friends who
declare wrong right, nor enemies who look for a flaw in the cor-
rectest matter. Meanwhile you may diligently read the church
fathers and take good care of yourself. 152)

At the risk of becoming tedious we have reproduced these
three documents entire. To the age in which we live these
elaborate efforts of three learned men to declare their senti-
ments, to terrify each other, to fortify themselves for the
coming ordeal, seem overwrought, unnatural. There is in
them a strange mixture of religious fervor and human
passion. We imagine that we discern in them a note of
false heroism, of bravado, such as in the speeches of the
ancient warriors of Greece in the camp before Troy, when
"battles" were fought that would hardly be recorded as skir-
mishes nowadays. We have changed our customs since the
days of the Leipzig Debate. Says a modem writer : "It was
a time when the joy of disputation was like the joy of battle,
and victors achieved honors not less coveted than that which
lured the stainless Bayard to deeds of daring. Victory in
such a contest was almost equal to winning the Marathon
race to-day, and the triumph of its champion brought nearly
as much fame to a university then as the championship in
football brings to an American university in our day. The
men of the sixteenth century knew no better than to think
that mind ought to coimt for more than muscle in a uni-
versity; we of the wiser twentieth century have changed all
that." 1^) This is fine sarcasm, and it is deserved. But the
phenomenon confronting us in these ante-bellum deliverances
of the combatants have a deeper meaning. They were the
instinctive response to sentiments that were deeply stirring
the men of that age. The people desired to hear from their
spokesmen. They had no newspapers; pamphlets and bro-
chures prepared them for the great events of history that
were then in the making, and in them they caught glimpses

152) XV, 826 ff. 153) Vedder, Z. c, p. 92.

102 11- FIKAI. PEEPAKATIONS FOB THE DEBATE.

of the quality of their great men and the nature of their
contentions. ISTor were the leaders, Luther before the rest,
slow to perceive the value of the common people's support in
a cause. Thei,rs was a struggle for popular rights. The chal-
lenge that had been issued to amautocracy, the more galling
because it was exercised in the sacred affairs of the heart and
conscience, had first been voiced, it is true, by a clergyman,
but it was really the voice of the people who had found in
him an apt interpreter of their aspirations. The struggle
that now commenced was for the people, in behalf of their
God-given rights, liberties, and privileges. It must, to be suc-
cessful, be waged ultimately by the people. Therefore their
intelligent interest and cooperation was a matter of para-
mount importance to the combatants. We are too far re-
moved from the issues of those times to estimate aright their
full meaning. We have enjoyed the privileges which were
then secured such a long time that they are regarded by us
as a matter of course, and we are apt to smile at the excite-
ment which accompanied their advent as we smile at a child
clapping its hands when beholding the sun rise. For the
purpose of aiding the twentieth century reader to adjust him-
self to the feelings of an age that gave us the essence of
blessings we are enjoying now, the seeming trifles that were
precursors of the Leipzig Debate have been set forth with
such an abundance of detail. That debate was a really great
event. "This disputation is one of the most famous in his-
tory, and as much perhaps as anything that occurred in-
fluenced the course of subsequent events. It brought the two
parties into close and sharp contact, and permits us to see
what were the views of each, and by what arguments they
defended them." 154)

There is one incident that remains to be noticed in con-
nectiotL with the final preparations for the debate : Oarlstadt
issued those 406 theses which he had drawn up for debate by
graduates at Wittenberg, and which first excited Eck, in
a new edition, with a supplement in the form of a cartoon.

154) Vedder, I. v., p. 93.

11. FINAL PBEPAKATIONS FOE THE DEBATE. 103

This cartoon served as the cover for the pamphlet. It was
satirical : it showed two carriages, one, representing the true
theology, headed for heaven; the other, representing the
scholastic theology, headed for hell. There was a monk- sit-
ting in the second wagon. Loescher, who saw this cartoon,
says that the monk "does not represent any one in par-
ticular," which means, of course, that he does not represent
Eck. A cartoon is rarely edifying and convincing. We
probably shrug our shoulders nowadays at this pictorial at-
tempt to assure the students at Wittenberg by a glance that
they were on the right road with their theology while Eck
was on the wrong road with his, and to make an impression'
on illiterate people, who could only look at a funny picture,
while they were unable to read a book. But there are more
serious objections to be raised to this campaign publication
of Carlstadt: he has surrounded the pictures in the cartoon
with descriptive literature. In one place he deprecates loving
God for spiritual benefits, which would render the Second
Petition largely superfluous. In another place there occurs
this false estimate of the Scriptures : —

Though Holy Writ is good and holy,

Still it frequently makes sin violently alive,

Serves for transgression, wrath, and death.

Concludes all men under death,

Only quickens desire and forges sinful bonds.

Let no one take comfort in Scripture

Who would he saved by Christ.

This applies what can be said only of the Law to the entire
Scriptures, hence also to the Gospel; for Carlstadt speaks
of that Scripture which shows us Christ "and says: He is
your Savior!" Further on a penitent expresses this senti-
ment:

I bring before Thee my malice;

That is my righteousness.

The meaning is that, when a person bares his wickedness to
God, he does right and becomes righteous by that act of
self-abasement. That, however, means to derogate from the
righteousness of Christ, which is the sinner's by faith. The

104 12. THE THIRTEENTH THESIS.

cartoon ia also very deferential to "the Eoman Christian
Church." Carlstadt declares: "I allow even a child to cor-
rect me.'' The reader is to supply the conclusion : How much
more do I submit to the corrections of the Holy Pather.155)
The mystic and fanatical elements in Carlstadt's theology
which wrecked his career three years later are beginning to
show already at this time.

12. The Thirteenth Thesis.

A most interesting and cheering glimpse of the busy
Luther during these stirring months is afforded us in a letter
of March 13 to Spalatin. He says : —

I cannot write the Lord's Prayer in Latin 156) because I am
occupied with so many tasks.

Observe, now, some of these tasks:

Every day towards vesper time I recite the Ten Command-
ments and the Lord's Prayer with the children and the laymen,
and then I preach. I am also preparing (my exposition of Paul
to the) Galatians for publication; besides, I am reciting tjje pre-
scribed prayers and lessons.lST) I have absolutely not time enough
for my work, not to speak of having time to spare. I have in
mind now writing a sermon on the Meditation upon the Suffer-
ing of Christ,158) but I do not know whether I shall have suiScient
leisure to write it out; I shall try.

Still more is Luther engrossed with care about the uni-
versity. A year ago a bright and able young professor had
come to Wittenberg, for whom Luther had conceived a great
love. His name was Philip Melanchthon. The council of
the university was trying to put more work on him than he
was already doing, and Luther protests : • —

155) Vnschuld. Nachr., 1707, p. 485 ff. There is also a detailed
description of this cartoon in the St. Louis edition of Luther's Worlcs
in XV, 808 f., but it is not as complete as Loescher's.

156) He refers to the Exposition of the Lord's Prayer for Simple
Laymen, VII, 752 ff.

157) It win he remembered that Luther at this time was still a
monlc, subject to the rule of the Augustinian order, which was one of
the strictest,

158) XI, 574.

12. THE THIRTEENTH THESIS.' 105

It will exceed the strength of our Philip, my dear Spalatin,
to burden him with so many tasks, because he is already over-
burdened. For although you suggest that he should lecture every
other day, still his mind is engrossed with too many cares.
Moreover, Aristotle's Physics is an altogether useless subject for
students of any age. The whole book discusses in a way an
inane subject, almost a fictitious matter. Rhetorical exercises
are of no use, unless you want to see a brawling orator exercis-
ing his brains and ability by discoursing on the subject of manure
or some other useless subject. God in His anger has decreed that
the human race for so many centuries should be afflicted with
these silly matters, which, by the way, have not been understood
at all. I know the book from beginning to end; for, omitting
the glosses, I have twice expounded it to my brethren in private.
Yea, we hold that the only reason for reading it is to convince
everybody at last — and that soon ! — that the reading of it
should be discontinued, because it would be far more useful to
read any one of the rhetorical exercises of Beroaldus.159) There
is absolutely nothing to be learned about nature from this book.
The same holds good of his Metaphysics and his treatise On the
Soul. It is, therefore, unbecoming that a mind like Melanch-
thon's should be occupied with the filth of such empty vanities.
It is better to read it through without understanding it — merely
for the sake of having read it, than to try to understand it.

But is Luther not thinking of his debate at all? Tes;
he is "whispering something into Spalatin's ear" in this
letter : —

For my debate I am examining the decretals of tlie Popes,
and let me tell you below my breath that I am undecided whether
the Pope is Antichrist or his apostle, because in these decretals —
I am telling the truth ! — he has miserably perverted and cru-
cified Christ. I am exceedingly grieved to see the people of Christ
fooled under pretense of the laws and name of Christ. Some day
I shall send you my annotations to these decretals, in order that
you may see what it means to make laws without regard to the
Scriptures, in the endeavor to usurp the autocracy; not to men-
tion other evidences, quite similar to those ascribed to Anti-
christ, which are perpetrated by the Roman Curia, and rush forth
from there. From day to day the Scriptures are becoming of
more aid and assistance to me.l60)

We saw in a previous chapter how Luther's mind gradu-

159) Philip Beroaldus, Sr. (t 1505), had been teaclier of rhetoric
at Parma, Milan, and Paris.

160) XXI a, 155 f.

106 12. THE I'lIIKTEENTH THESIS.

ally verged to this critical subject of the primacy of the
Pope, and how his friends were filled with anxiety on this
account. For Carlstadt was not the only person who desired
to see that subject avoided. When Luther's thirteenth thesis
began to be understood, and such remarks as Jjuther had
dropped in the foregoing letter began to circulate among
the friends, there was much ominous shaking of heads and
whispering with bated breath about Brother Martin's daring
thesis. Spalatin sent a warning note to Luther. Others ad-
dressed excited and nervous inquiries to him. Prof. Dungers-
heim of Leipzig, with whom Luther was engaged in a corre-
spondence on the primacy of the Pope, wrote him sneeringly :
it seemed that he was clutching the Council of ISTicea for his
support. Reserving his real arguments for the oral discussion
at Leipzig, Luther decided to allay the fears of his friends
and to stop the gadding of his enemies by publishing a trea-
tise on the mooted question of the primacy in advance of
the debate. He called it An Explanation of the Thirteenth
Thesis on the Authority of the Pope. In the prefatory letter
to the public he says that he has hurriedly compiled this ex-
planation to meet the vilest slanders of his enemies. In this
treatise he discusses principally the testimony of the Holy
Scriptures to which he had appealed in his thirteenth thesis.
He says that the Power of the Keys which Christ (Matt. 16,
16 — 18) had conferred on Peter was not delegated to Peter
alone, but to all the disciples in common, hence to the entire
congregation of the believers in Christ. This congregation
of believers, now, who are sanctified by faith in Christ, is in
Luther's view the "Catholic Church." It is not essential to
this Church that it have a human head besides the Heavenly
One, with whom the believers are joined as members. To
prove that he has rightly understood this matter in accord
with all Christendom, Luther appeals to the Creed, which
says: "I believe one holy catholic Church, the communion
of saints." His inquiry leads him to this conclusion: "I do
not know whether the faith of Christians can tolerate the
setting up on earth of another head for the Church universal
besides Jesus Christ.''

12. THE THIRTEENTH THESIS. 107

He is willing to concede a certain superiority to the
Roman Church. This superiority is essentially the same as
that of which Paul speaks in Eom.»13, 1, where he enjoins
obedience to the secular authorities. The papal authority
is one of "the powers that be." In so far as it actually
exists, then, alongside of other powers, Luther is willing to
regard the papal power as "ordained of God." He regards
this as the strongest argument for proving that it is the duty
of Christians to obey the Pope. But he has another argu-
ment: As long as it is admitted that the authority of the
Pope is merely a secular or hiiman authority, he is not going
to quarrel about it ; it is a paltry affair, for which Christians
should never sacrifice the unity of the Church, and that love
and humility which makes them true members of the Church.
But the question becomes an entirely different one the mo-
ment we are required to believe that the primacy of the
Pope has been ordained of God by an immediate act, and
when submission to the same is enacted by force and intimi-
dation. That can only engender hatred. Such a primacyr
cannot be maintained by an appeal to Matt. 16. In agree-
ment with the ancient fathers, Luther holds that the cir-
cumstance of Peter answering the question of the Lord must
not be stressed: he was simply the spokesman of all the dis-
ciples; for by the revelation which the Father had made to
them they had all acknowledged Jesus to be the Christ. If
the Power of the Keys had been conferred on Peter alone;
if Peter were the Eock on which the Church is built; if it
is not rather Peter's faith, — then the law of consistency re-
quires that the Eoman Bishop, the Pope, be also addressed
in that word which Christ addressed to Peter on a later occa-
sion : "Get thee behind me, Satan." Now, the fact that the
Power of the Keys was not withdrawn from Peter when he
erred, proves that this power was not conferred on him per-
sonally, but in him on all believers; for otherwise it would
have been withdrawn. Hence the Power of the Keys is
wherever there is such faith as Peter had, and whatsoever the
church at Eome possesses every congregation, no matter how
small, possesses likewise. Wherever the Word of God is

108 12. THE TI-IIKTEBNTH THESIS.

preached and believed, there is true faith, there is the Rock
that cannot be overthrown. But vi^herever faith is, there is
the Church, there is the bride of Christ; and the bride has
all that her Bridegroom has, all that follows in the wake
of faith — the keys, the Sacraments, the power, and every-
thing else.

The primacy of the Pope, then, can only mean a priority
of rank and external distinction. This applies also to the
bishops : they are not by divine right above the other spiritual
shepherds of a Christian congregation. Luther calls atten-
tion to the fact that as late as the age of Jerome the belief
was common in the Church that the ministry was originally
established by Christ on a basis of equality. It was only in
the Western Church that the belief arose that the one holy
Christian Church could exist only in union with the episcopal
hierarchy of the Pope as its head. This view of the unity of
the Church, Luther holds, destroys the very essence of the
Church.

Luther reiterates his appeal to the Council of Nicea, to
the ancient fathers, and the old Christian congregations in
Asia, Greece,, and Africa, who never acknowledged the
supremacy of the Pope. What does that mean? Why, it
means this: You can be a good Christian and go to heaven
without having submitted to the rule of the Pope. Or do we
want to deny, Luther queries, that there are real Christians
in the Orient, although their pastors and bishops were not
ordained by the Pope?

The old papal decretals that had been cited against him,
Luther has now studied to such an extent that he is prepared
to say that any appeal to these decretals is a very weak argu-
ment. Luther refuses to recognize any papal authority that
could restrict his right to criticize the authenticity and bind-
ing force of those decretals. He has found in one of these
decretals the statement that both the secular and spiritual
authority have been conferred on the Pope. This wrests from
him the indignant cry : "Ought this not force tears into our
eyes that we are compelled, not only to read this, but also
to believe it, as though an oracle had spoken it? Tea, they

12. THE THIRTEENTH THESIS. 109

want to compel us to accept this as truth under pain of being
burned at the stake. And yet men are dreaming that they
behold the Church in a beautiful condition ! They do not see
Antichrist sitting in the temple of God." l^^i)

This Explanation made a powerful impression: it raised
the interest in the Leipzig Debate to the highest intensity
throughout Europe. The atmosphere had suddenly become
charged with electricity: soon the storm must break and the
lightning strike. God have mercy on Dr. Martin!

Yes, God be with our Martin ! He is in sore need. From
all the interesting correspondence that Luther has crowded
into the weeks immediately before the Leipzig Debate, we
shall select only one passage from a letter to Lang, dated
June 6. He states that he has finished his Explanation, that
Duke George has not answered his third letter with a defi-
nite ■ statement that he may come to Leipzig, that Eab has
gone to Rome to denounce him and bring back more papal
thunder, and then adds : —

Over and above all this, another afiBiction, more grievous than
all the rest, has been visited upon me. The Lord teaches me by
all these events what man is. And I thought I knew this well
enough before! . . . Farewell, and pray for me, great sinner that
I am. I need absolutely nothing except the mercy of God. That
is what troubles my jealous opponents ; they are aware that I am
in need of nothing else.162)

One of those spells of despondency had seized him again
of which he had complained on previous occasions. Thoughts
like these would torment him : Martin Luther, you are a sin-
ner ; you are not called to do this holy work for Christ. The
Lord does not want you at all. — And then a deep sadness
would settle on his bruised and crushed heart, and in that
humbled condition he would indeed be conscious of one
thought only, the desire for the mercy of God. But this
was the schooling which the divine Master applied to his
pupil; in this way, by utterly abasing him, he trained him
to efficiency, and made him great.

161) XVIII, 720 ff. 162) XV, 24T5.

110 13. LEYPTZIGK.

13. Leyptzigk.

So Luther wrote the name of the city where he was
to hold his famous debate. — The university in this city
is the second oldest in the German Empire. It came into
existence as the academic antithesis to Hus and the Uni-
versity of Prague in 1409. King Wenceslaus had deposed
John of Muensterberg as rector of the University of Prague
in May of that year. ISTational disorders broke out in Bo-
hemia soon after, and the deposed rector, with quite a number
of students, left Prague and came to Leipzig, where Frederick
and William, Landgraves of Thuringia and Margraves of
Meissen, founded for them a studium generate, that is, a uni-
versity. The bull for the foundation was issued by Pope
Alexander V at Pisa, September 9, 1409 ; the charter was
signed December , 2, of the same year. The deposed pro-
fessor from Prague became the first rector of the new uni-
versity, and in the first semester 369 students matriculated.
The Bishop of Merseburg was appointed chancellor.

"At the opening of the 16th century Leipzig was, like
Cologne, a stronghold of scholasticism, and a large part of
the Epistolae Oiscurorum Virorum, written in Erfurt near
by, refers to it.' The university, ' especially the theological
faculty, remained true to the Church at the beginning of
the Reformation. . . During the period of religious dissen-
sion the University of Leipzig declined greatly." 163)

The city was an important trade center : the Leipzig Fair
was a famous event even in Luther's time. It boasted con-
siderable wealth; it had some paved streets, which were very
hot' in summer, and the lax morals of the clergy and the
students had given it an unsavory reputation. It was par-
ticularly notorious for its drunkenness and lewdness. There
was a special brand of beer brewed at Leipzig, which the stu-
dents called "Eastrum." This word is really the name for
a farmer's rake or mattock. The beer was thus called be-

163) Cath. Eiioycl. IX, 140.

13. LEYPTZIGK. Ill

cause it scratched and furrowed the stomach like a peasant's
rake.lW)

The immorality of the ecclesiastics of Leipzig is por-
trayed especially in the ninth letter of the Epistolae Ohscu-
rorum Virorum.^^) True, the Epistolae are a burlesque i but
what else was the medieval monk ? Besides, there is abundant
other evidence to establish this point.l'^'')

164) An unknown genius at Erfurt composed a "Quodlibetum," in
which, amongst other things, he dilates on the "Rastrum" and the
other beers of Leipzig; "Lipsensium vero cerevlsiam studentes vocant
Rastrum, metaphora puto sumpta ab agricolis, quod quemadmodum hi
rastrls et sarculis et ligonibus omnem duritiem vertunt et emolliunt, ita
Lipsensium cerevisia velut rastrum intestinal omnia sua acetositate
laedit, movet et corrumpit. Est autem triplex, de quo talis est versus :

Ein topfC Scherpentum, zween Rastrum, spanque Coventum.

Nihilomiuus tamen in tam nobili oppido externae quoque habentur cere-
visiae. Ut sunt Einltecensis, quae apud nos est optima. Neuburgensis,
quae oculos laedit. Targaviensis. lielgeranensis, de qua Proverbium
est. Belgerana est omnibus Sana. Wurizellensis. Friburgensis et reli-
quae id genus. Praeterea quis non novit Saxonicas quoque cerevisias
diversis appellari nominibus ? Filts scilicet Magdeburgensts. Momnion
sive Mommum Brunswigense. Gause Goslariensis." Seidemann, Die
Eeformationszeit in Sachsen von 1517 Ms 1SS9, P. VIII. — We offer this
and the following citations relating to the moral status of Leipzig as
evidence for what we have said about the taverns and brothels of Leip-
zig in Luther Examined and Reexamined.

165) See also pp. 100 — 2. 112 — 4. 135. 149 ft. in Seidemann, op. cit.

166) The brothels were called by the students "das fuenfte Colle-
gium." The author of the Epistolae explains this as follows : The
Dominicans numbered five evangelists, , regarding "Thomas von 'Wasser-
burg' " (the well-known Aquinas) as the fifth. {Ep. Ohs. Vir., p. 414.)
Now, the Lipsians decided that they must also have something that
they might label "the fifth." This fifth entity was the "Freiweib."
Schuetz has given us a letter that shows how Luther drove these "free
women" out of Wittenberg. (Dngedruckte Brief e, I, 404.) — The old
Saxon annalist Froeschel (Bl. G. LIII) says : "Wie auch hey vns im
Aduent, wenn man das Rorate hat gehalten vnd gesungen, da man schier
mehr Megde auff den Collegl.is hat gefunden, denn in den Kirchen vnd
in jren Heusern vnd Herbergen. Auch wie es die nacht ist zugangen,
wenn die Papisten jren Herrgott ins Grab gelegt haben, vnd die Kirche
zu nachtes lange lassen often stehen, vnd wenn man auch in die stuele
gelegt hat. Auch zu Weihnachten, wenn man die Christmesse in der
nacht gehalten hat, dauon einem grawet, wenn man allein daran ge-
dencket." Seidemann also calls attention to this passage in Luther's
Table Talk, chap. XIII : "Da ist das Rorate zu einer jemmerlichen,
auch eusserlichen groben Vuzucht vnd Hurerei worden, sonderlich zu
Leyptzigk etwan, da eine so grosse vnzucht vnter der Roratemesse ge-
trieben worden, das es mit menschen gedanken nicht zu begreiflfen ist.
Der Creutzgang zu S. Thomas wuerde es am besten zeugen, wenn er
reden koendte." Prof. Dungersheim, whom we have mentioned a num-
ber of times, was told by his opponent Schoenichen that the priests at
Leipzig were "mith huren behangen, wie ein pilgram mith muscheln."
(Seidemann, op. cit., p. 12 f.)

112 13. LEYPTZIGK.

George the Bearded, also called the Rich, the reigning
prince of ducal Saxony, was born at Dresden August 2Y,
1471, and died in the same city, April lY, 1539. He had
originally been intended for the church, being a younger son.
Accordingly, "he received an excellent training in theology
and other branches of learning, and was thus much better
educated than most of the princes of his day. . . . Hardly
one of the secular princes of Germany held as firmly as
he to the Church." 1^7) The character of Duke George is
a strange mixture of progressiveness and reactionism. He
was, according to the testimony of Hausrath, one of the
ablest of the German rulers. He governed his country well,
subduing his refractory nobles, and in general keeping the
reins of government well in hand. He became one of the
founders of the Saxon mining industry; he secured from the
Curia the elevation of the church at Annaberg to the dignity
of a place of pilgrimage. Thus there dwelt side by side in
his strange head an energetic business sense and a firmly
rooted medieval superstition. He was very strict with the
clergy and the Curia in financial matters; every gulden 'had
to be exactly accounted for; he was indignant at the greed
of the Eoman priests, but he never doubted a moment that
only through them his church could obtain efficient indul-
gences. In his transactions with Rome regarding the eleva-
tion of Annaberg he was guided by two motives : the money
must remain in his country, and the miners and his subjects
in general needed the indulgences. His piety consisted in
a rigid conservatism; he was resolved to "abide by what his
good father and his dear mother had taught him." Accord-
ingly, be was inexorable toward those who fell away from
the old faith. Luther's doctrine shocked him, not so much
because it was heretical as because it was new. His stub-
bornness and pedantry at length made Duke George un-
bearable to his own people. Luther, who, as we have seen,
had to suffer much from his smallness, would jokingly say,
referring to the Duke's closeness and self-will : "He is look-

167) Catn. Encycl. VI, 457.

13. I.EYPTZIQK. 113

ing for the fifth corner of the bag"; or, alluding to his
A\'rathfulness, he would say : "There is no hope that he will
quit raving; the ocean would dry up sooner." Luther de-
clared that this pig-headed Duke and the treacherous Arch-
bishop Albrecht of Mayence had "taught him what sort of
weeds the men of this world are." 1^8)

Most elaborate preparations had been made for the debate
under the personal directions of Duke George. In antici-
pation of the large number of visitors, who could not have
been accommodated in the chapel of the loniversity, the Duke
had ordered the great hall in his castle Pleissenburg to be
made ready for the debate. Here two desks were placed
opposite one another : over the one from which Luther would
speak a picture had been mounted on the wall representing
St. Martin, while Eck's desk was surmounted by a represen-
tation of St. Greorge the Dragon-killer. Plainly there was
design especially in the placing of the second picture: it
foreshadowed the victory of Eck over the dragon of heresy,
Luther. Hausrath raises our smile by remarking that the
legend of St. George is of heretical origin : the knight
St. George is the heretic Arius, and the dragon is the good
orthodox church father Athanasius. This is true, and it
proves that either the Duke's artists or theologians were
poor archaeologists ; but it mattered little because the legend
had been changed from its original to the opposite meaning.
— In the city the police force had been increased, and they
had much to do during the four weeks that the guests re-
mained in the city. The various guilds and the city guards
had been ordered to meet the incoming disputants and con-
duct them with due honors to their quarters and to and from
their meetings. Each division had its special station assigned
to it, and aU acquitted themselves of their appointed tasks
with a great deal of pomp and more noise.

Only the members of the theological faculty were sulky.
An order had come to them from the Bishop of Merseburg
forbidding the debate, and, accordingly, the debate from be-

168) Hausrath, I, 293.

DAU, LEIPZIG DEBATE.

114 13. LBTPTZIGK.

ginning to end was held without their official cooperation.
During the debate they sat behind Eck's desk. The bishop's
order was posted on one of the church-doors on the very
morning when the debate opened; but when Duke George
heard of this, he sent a messenger to tear it down and to
arrest the man who had d,ared to post it. This order was
accompanied with rather descriptive language a la Duke
George. He would have it understood that this was his
town, and his university, and his debate, and neither bishop
nor Pope would be permitted to interfere. With the bishop's
order also the Pope's Bull Cum postquam had been posted,
and this, too, was ordered removed. And this Duke hated
Luther for attacking the authority of the Pope! Was there
ever such pig-headedness ? i^^)

Eck had contrived to arrive at Leipzig five days in ad-
vance of the day for the opening of the debate, on June 22.
He made the best of his advantage by ingratiating himself
with every prominent person in Leipzig, and creating a dis-
tinct animus against the Wittenbergers where such animus
did not already exist. He was a tall, robust man, lively,
jtovial, courteous, and displaying every possible trait that
might win him favor. He came with a special letter of
recommendation from the mighty Fuggers of Augsburg, and
at once the financiers of Leipzig were duly impressed with
the importance of a gentleman who enjoyed the friendship
of the greatest bankers in Germany. He came among the
university professors with a humble and deferential de-
meanor, and coddled particularly the moss-grown obscu-

169) For all these details and many others relating to the opening,
the conduct, and the close of the debate we are indebted to the accounts
given of the affair by eye-witnesses, particularly of Prof. Mosellanus,
to the report of the debate which each of the chief disputants drew up
afterwards, and to the correspondence of Eels and Luther during and
after the debate. There are over three hundred references to the
debate while it was in progress, and to its immediate consequences,
scattered in Vols. XV, XVIII, and -XXI a of the St. Louis edition.
Additional material is found in Seidemann, Wiedemann, and Preserved
Smith's Luther's Correspondence. We would like herewith to refer to
all these sources, as it would destroy or considerably mar the effect of
the description of the debate to give the exact authority for every item.
We shall give the exact reference only for the speeches during the
debate.

13. LEYPTZIGK. 115

rantists in the theological faculty by saying ever so many
nice things about their learning and intellectuality, and
everybody was carried away with the affability, the decorum,
the enlightenment of the great Doctor from Ingolstadt, who
could with such excellent tact not only descend to the level
of his inferiors, but make his inferiors believe that they were
above him. Only one of the Leipzig professors seems to have
understood the game the wily Eck was playing: this was
Mosellanus. Eck met the rich burghers at their homes and
was feasted and flowered, dined and wined; and wherever
he went, he charmed his hosts and hostesses by his wit, his
fluent conversation, his cosmopolitan manners, and his easy
morals wherever he discovered a leaning in that direction,
while he could also be very devout and full of reverence and
pious reflections with others. On the day after his arrival he
joined the clergy and the professors in the customary pro-
cession of Corpus Christi Day (Thursday after Trinity Sun-
day) , and impressed the throngs of spectators along the route
with the fervor of his devotion and his great humility. The
theologians were enraptured with him ; henceforth they clung
to him wherever he went; they went out riding with him,
they arranged collations for him, they presented him with
new garments, and in every possible way lionized him. Eck
had a shrewd adjutant among them, the Duke's chaplain.
Eraser, who had come up from Dresden. This is the same
Emser whom Luther mentions in his account of the social
evening which he had spent at Dresden, and where he had
suddenly found himself among traitors. This Emser went
from one theologian to the other, from one cleric to the
other, whispering to them that they must in every way give
Eck the preference, flock to him whenever he would show
himself in public, sit on his side in the hall during the debate,
give approval to what he might say, and, on the other hand,
treat the Wittenbergers coldly.

The Wittenbergers arrived June 24, entering by the
Grimma gate. Magister Eroeschel, who has left us such
interesting information about the rhorals of Leipzig, has de-
scribed their entrance into the city. First came a wagon

116 14. CAKLSTADT VEKSUS ECK.

witli a lone occupant of small stature and swarthy face. This
was the principal of the debate from Wittenberg, Carlstadt.
He carried the passport for the entire Wittenberg party, and
it had been arranged for that reason that he should ride
ahead alone. Next came a wagon in which were Luther, his
youthful colleague Melanchthon, then twenty-two years old,
the Augustinian vicar of Erfurt, Lang, Nicolaus von Ams-
dorf, and others. On both sides of the wagons rode and
marched two hundred armed Wittenberg students, headed
by the rector of their university, the young Duke Barnim
of Pomerania. When this train passed the cemetery at the
church of the Paulinians, the wheel came off on Carlstadt's
wagon, and the unfortunate Doctor was ignominiously spilt
in the mud. Emser was in the crowd, whispering to the
spectators the meaning of what they had just seen. Soon
a murmuring ran through the crowd: Eck is going to con-
quer, and Carlstadt will be defeated. Eor did not this acci-
dent conclusively prove it? Melchior Letter, the printer on
the Hainstrasse, who had published several of Luther's writ-
ings, and who afterwards moved to Wittenberg, was Luther's
and Melanchthon's host. The rest, of the Wittenbergers
found lodging in the various inns of the city and with citi-
zens. Particularly the students took up their lodging at the
public houses, and there was much friction between them
and the Leipzig students during the time of the debate, and
the bailiffs and city guardsmen had to interfere to stop argu-
ments that were delivered with the fist and the sword.

14. Carlstadt versus Eck.

The debate came near being called off during the prelimi-
naries. First, as regards Carlstadt. He was nominally the
champion of the Wittenberg side. It was proper that in
point of order he should be given the precedence over Luther,
for the debate had been arranged directly for him. Two
matters had to be settled before the debate could begin: the
notaries had to be appointed who were to take down the re-

14. CABLSTADT VERSUS ECK. 117

marks of the speakers, and the final judges were to be chosen
to whom the entire argument was to be submitted for a de-
cision regarding the orthodoxy of each speaker's position.
This had been plainly stipulated in the writings that were
exchanged during the weeks before the debate. Imagine,
then, the surprise that was created when Eck declared that
he was not in favor of the appointment of notaries. He
argued that they would prove an inconvenience to the dis-
putants: a ready speaker would deliver his arguments quite
rapidly, and his fluency would suffer if he would constantly
have to think of the notaries whether they were really
taking down all his remarks. The debate would thus be-
come a tedious affair, dragging 'along in a listless fashion,
dampening not only the ardor of the disputants, but also
killing the interest of the listeners. For himself Eck de-
clared that he would chafe under the restraint put on him
by the presence of notaries; he preferred unhampered free-
dom to express himself quickly and rapidly in order to make
the debate lively and a real success. The success which Eck
had in mind was a success from the oratorical point of view.
He wanted to shine as a fluent speaker, a splendid orator,
and a quick-witted debater. But his specious plea shrewdly
concealed his real motive: he knew, and others knew like-
wise, having heard him before, that he was apt to make bold
assertions in defending his position — assertions the weak-
ness and irrelevancy of which he could manage to conceal
by the tricks common to an orator, strong gestures, eloquent
periods, and an attack upon the feelings. He was afraid that
his remarks, when carefully recorded, woiild be found, on
close examination, to contain subtle prevarications. How-
ever, Carlstadt held him to the original stipulations, and he
ultimately yielded.

The next trouble was caused by Carlstadt: he refused
to have the protocol of the debate submitted to judges. It
had been pointed out during the discussion of the previous
point that already for the sake of the judges, notaries were
necessary, or there would be nothing to submit to the judges;
but Carlstadt persevered in his unwillingness on the ground

118 - 14. CARLSTADT VERSUS ECIC.

that lie knew of no impartial judges to whom he would be
willing to entrust his cause.

The position which the Wittenberg faculty had taken on
the scholastic theology, on human free will, and on indul-
gences,- still more the position which Luther had taken on the
primacy of the Pope, was indeed such as to array the learned
world of Europe against them a priori, and it was a foregone
conclusion that no theological faculty would render a de-
cision in Carlstadt's and Luther's favor. But when even
Duke O-eorge insisted that a court of theologians must be
appointed to render a decision on the debate, Carlstadt
yielded. It was agreed that the actual choice of the judges
should be made later.

The party of secondary consideration, though to all in-
tents and purposes, the acknowledged Wittenberg primary
in this debate, was' Luther. He had been so persistently
snubbed, and from the moment that he set his foot into
Leipzig was being ignored by the Leipzig managers of the
debate with such studied efiort, that he had become utterly
disgusted by the time the preliminaries had to be arranged.
The great number of visitors that were flocking to Leipzig
came chiefly, if not solely, on Luther's account. Eck and
the Leipzig professors had wanted him to attend the debate,
and yet they labored by continuous petty acts that were cal-
.culated to irritate Luther, to belittle him, cause him to feel
out of place, compel him to seek recognition when it should
have been readily accorded him, make him appear as a sus-
pected and marked man. In short, they resorted to all those
small and contemptible meannesses by which jealous people
know how to rob the person whom they do not like of his
ease of mind, and unnerve him for the work he is to do.
Under these circumstances, Luther was ready to drop the
debate and return to Wittenberg. He was present at the
arrangement of the preliminaries, but refused to sign the
articles of agreement. A theological court of judges he would
not accept at all. How could he consistently ask for a ver-
dict on his l^eachings from papists when he had already ap-
pealed from the Pope to a council of the Church? All

14. CARLSTADT VERSUS ECK. 119

efforts to make liim yield were wrecked on his iron determi-
nation. It looked as if there really would be no debate
after all. Then the Wittenberg delegation began to urge
and plead and persuade. They even became bitter against
Luther: had they come all the way from Wittenberg only
to go right back and hp laughed at? How would the Wit-
tenberg university be parodied among the learned men of
Europe when it became laiown that they demanded a debate
from which they backed out in the last moment! And what
impression would this make on the common people ! Luther's
disgust must have been reported to Eck: he came to see
Luther at his lodging, and the following conversation en-
sued : —

Eck : I have heard that you are withdrawing from the debate.

Luther: How shall I be able to debate when I have not suc-
ceeded in obtaining a safe-conduct from Duke George?

Eck : If I cannot debate with you, I do not care , to debate with
Carlstadt, for I came hither for your sake. What if I get you
a safe-conduct? Will you then debate with me?

Luther: Get it, and I shall debate.170)

Luther himself related this incident in 1545. The reason
which he offered Eck for not wanting to debate was, of course,
intended merely as a reproof of Eck's faithless conduct dur-
ing the previous weeks. He could have secured the safe-
conduct for Luther long ago; but it was part of his plan
to humiliate and irritate Luther that he had forced him to
come to Leipzig "under the wings of Carlstadt." For Eck
had hardly left Luther's lodging after the interview just
noted, when a safe-conduct was brought to Luther. Duke
George also invited him to be his guest, and repeated this
invitation several times during the days of the debate.
Luther now decided to remain, but still refused to sign any
agreements.

Loughlin has noted, with a curious comment, that "the
Leipzig Debate was the last occasion on which the ancient
custom of swearing to advance no tenet contrary to Catholic
doctrine was observed. In all subsequent debates between

ITO) Erl. edit., 0pp. u. u.. I, 19 f.

120 14. CAKLSTADT VERSUS ECK.

Catholics and Protestants the bare text of Holy Writ was
taken as the sole and sufficient fountain of authority. This,
naturally placed the- Catholics in a disadvantageous position
and narrowed their prospect of success." ( ! ) 1''!)

On Monday, June 2Y, at seven in the morning, the solemn
acts for the opening of the debate began. Crowds of spec-
tators, some from a considerable distance, and many men
of prominence had gathered at Leipzig. Tears after they
would tell and write to their friends about the great scenes
they had witnessed during the days of the debate. The meet-
ing was opened in the hall of the princes at the university.
Dr. Simon Pistoris, professor-in-ordinary of the faculty of
jurisprudence, delivered the salutatory address. Then a pro-
cession was formed: two by two the assembly marched to
St. Thomas Church, a delegate from Wittenberg always
walking with a Leipziger. The citizens' guards with their
arms marched alongside. A solemn high mass was cele-
brated at the church, and then the procession reformed, and
with banners waving and drums beating marched to the
splendidly decorated hall at the Pleissenburg. After every-
body had occupied the place assigned him, Duke George
sitting surrounded by his notables, and the elite of Leipzig
having grouped itself around Eck, another oration was de-
livered by Peter Schade from the Moselle valley, hence called
Mosellanus. The speaker had been pressed into service for
this number of the program when the sulking theologians
refused to have anything to do officially with the debate.
Mosellanus, who belonged to the faculty of arts, was favor-
ably inclined towards Luther. He hit upon the plan of sub-
stituting a beautiful allegory for his speech. A boy was to
represent the childlike purity of sacred theology, and in
a highly poetical recitation, spoken from memory, was to
describe to the audience the solemn meaning of the acts
which they had come to witness. The recitation had all been
finely written, but the boy to recite it could not be found.
Finally the professor had to assume the role of the boy and

171) Cath. Encycl. V, 35.

14. CABLSTADT VERSUS EOK. 121

recite his own product. To make matters still worse, Mosel-
lanus had been taken ill a few days previous, and had not
been able to properly commit his artistic production to
memory. His voice was weak, he stammered and halted in
his delivery, and since he had not changed those portions
where the reciter referred to himself as a child there were
episodes in the recitation that were quite ludicrous. But
with enforced dignity the audience bore the infliction. Mosel-
lanus referred to Eck and Carlstadt by name and with lauda-
tory epithets, but did not mention Luther at all. Since he
was an admirer of Luther, the historians have been able to
explain his silence only by assuming that he had not been
sure of Luther's coming when he composed his address, or he
had received a hint from Duke George or some one else not
to mention Luther. As it was, the absence of all reference
to Luther proved another snub. After Mosellanus had con-
cluded, a trained choir with musical accompaniment intuned
the noble old hymn "Veni, sancte Spiritus," which was sung
three times, the entire audience kneeling. — These solemn
acts had occupied the entire forenoon, and everybody hurried
to his noon repast when the last notes of the noble hymn had
died upon the air. Rumors had begun to circulate in the
crowd that quite a number of Bohemians had come up from
Prague, because they considered Luther the spokesman for
their own tenets. Duke George gave orders to increase the
civic guards and to sternly repress the least disturbance.
The guards were kept on duty throughout the debate.

The actual tournament began at two in the afternoon;
it was continued the entire next day. Then came two days
of interruption because of the festival of Sts. Peter and Paul.
The debate was resumed on July 1 and closed on Sunday,
July 3, another recess having been taken on Saturday be-
cause of the festival of the Visitation of Mary.

The subject for discussion during these days was the
quality and power of human free will, independent of the
grace of God, and when aided by divine grace. Carlstadt
spoke first; he declared that he would not depart from the
teaching of the Church, but would consider Scripture the

122 14. CAKLSTADT VERSUS ECK.

highest authority. Eck began his discussion with a brief
prayer, and then declared that he would teach nothing in
contradiction of the Scriptures and the Church. He now
plunged into the thesis: It is man's free will, and not the
grace of God alone, which actively produces good works.
Appealing to Ecclus. (Sirach) 15, 14 — 19,1^2) and referring
to the Defensio which Oarlstadt had published, he claimed
that the passage quoted referred, nof to man in the state of
innocence, but to man in his present state under sin. On
the authority of Jerome, Ambrose, and Bernard he asserted
that free will in man existed also after the fall. Carlstadt
maintained that the passage must be interpreted to refer to
the state of innocence, and criticized Eck's citations from the
fathers. In his reply Eck made the direct assertion that
human free will is entitled to reward for man's good works,
because the servant in Matt. 25, 20 says that he had earned
five talents. Carlstadt rejoined that the servant had not
earned those talents by his free will, but by the grace of God,
which operated through him, as can be seen from 1 Cor.
15, 10. Eck insisted nevertheless that the servant had labored
and earned his wages. The time for adjournment having
arrived, he declared that he would continue his criticism of
Carlstadt to-morrow. Carlstadt reminded him that it would
be his turn first to speak to-morrow; still both agreed to dis-
cuss this point once more.

The next morning at seven Carlstadt began reading
a paper in which he declared that the passage from Eccle-
siasticus had been explained against Eck by Augustine, and
that 1 Cor. 15, 10 had been sufficiently discussed. However,
he wished to show from 2 Cor. 4, 7 and John 3, 27 that all
merit for man's good actions belongs to God, and not to man,
because the latter is called a vessel of grace. Moreover, he

172) "He Himself made man from beginning and left him in" the
hand of his counsel : if thou wilt, to keep the commandments, and to
perform acceptable faithfulness. He hath set fire and water before
tbee : stretch forth thy hand unto whether thou wilt. Before man is
life and death, and whether him liketh shall be given him. For the
wisdom of the Lord is great, and He is mighty in power, and beholdeth
all things : and His eyes are upon them that fear Him, and He Icnoweth
every work of man."

14. CAHLSTADT VEBSUS ECK. 123

called attention to the fact tliat Eck had had to admit that
before regeneration man's free will is not capable of any
good action. This admission upsets, he said, all that the
scholastics have said regarding merits prior to regeneration
and about acts by which man prepares himself for justifi-
cation. Eck demanded that no one should be permitted to
read anything from a paper, but every speaker must speak
ex corde. He accepted Augustine's explanation of the pas-
sage from Ecclesiasticus, because, he said, grace and man's
free will cooperate. This position he fortified by quotations
from Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. The latter, in par-
ticular, has said that grace is the rider and man's free will
is the horse. Hence, he said, there is indeed an activity in
man's free will independent of the grace of God. At this
point Carlstadt rose to reply, but Eck claimed that the next
hour still belonged to him.

At three in the afternoon Eck was still speaking, expatiat-
ing on the statement in 1 Cor. 15, 10 : "His grace which was
bestowed upon me was not in vain," and illuminating this
passage by a quotation from Bernard. Carlstadt replied that
Augustine had not compared man's free will to a horse, but
had said that the wounded man is placed on a horse. He de-
clared himself pleased with a statement of Eck to the effect
that no particular activity need be ascribed to man's free will,
which he endorsed as coinciding with the saying of Bernard :
Grace does the entire work; it is all by grace; and with
James 1, 17. But how little Eck had admitted what Carlstadt
thought he had, appeared when he took the floor again and
declared that Augustine speaks of free will as a secondary
cause, and that a certain activity must be ascribed. to all
causes of that kind. Moreover, where he speaks of the rider
and the horse he calls the horse a "jumentum," that is,
a draught animal. Hence, it is plain that grace and free
will cooperate. Carlstadt maintained that no natural ac-
tivity can be ascribed to human free will in the performance
of a good work; still man's free will might be called
a "jumentum," because it must be tamed like a wild animal.
The share which man's free will has in any good work

124 14. CABLSTADT VERSUS ECK.

amounts to nothing more than that man assents, and even
this assent is inspired by divine grace. Eck replied that he
understood Carlstadt now to admit an activity of man's free
will that is communicated by divine grace. In his Defensio
he had asserted, and so had Luther, that there is no activity
of free will whatever in man. He still insisted that while
the grace of God is the principal cause, still man's free will
is a less principal cause of the activity of man, and the two
work together. At this point Carlstadt began to speak halt-
ingly and admitted an activity of man's free will that is
communicated by grace, but he claimed that activity is as
when a wagon is set in motion : it is really grace alone that
operates. Melanchthon had meanwhile slipped a paper to
him from which Carlstadt tried to read, when Eck protested
that this was against the rules of debate on which they had
agreed. He also charged that Carlstadt had brought a private
notary into the meeting who was carefully taking down Eck's
remarks, and then helped Carlstadt at his lodging to prepare
his replies for the next day, while he, Eck, was compelled to
rely solely upon his memory and had to speak extempore.
Duke George had appointed two moderators, and to these Eck
appealed, with the result that they declared Carlstadt's prac-
tise out of order. Caesar Pilug, the ' Duke's counselor, an-
nounced their decision in German. Carlstadt took the de-
cision with visible indignation, and seemed inclined to drop
the debate. But inasmuch as strangers were still pouring
into the city, he agreed to submit to the ruling of the moder-
ators and to continue the debate.

On the next day there was no debate. Luther had been
asked by Duke Barnim to preach. No church could be ob-
tained for him to deliver the sermon, and he was forced to
preach in the hall of debate. The hall was crowded. Some
had come as spies to find a cause against Luther. Duke
George had gone to Dresden and was not present. Luther
spoke on the Gospel for the day, Matt. 16, 13 — 19. , He
touched upon the great questions on which the debate
turned, and explained them briefly and to the edification of
his hearers. On the basis of Jesus' words : "Flesh and blood

14. CAELSTADT VEKSUS ECK. 125

hath not revealed this unto thee," etc., he showed that in
spiritual matters divine grace must do all, and human free
■will can do nothing. The soul must first despair of its own
strength; then comes faith, which lays hold of the grace of
God, and in the state of grace and by grace the believer then
begins to do good works. Proceeding to the discussion of
the keys that were given to Peter, Luther showed that they
were given to Peter, not to have and keep them for himself,
but as the representative of the Church, and for applying
them for the comfort of poor sinners, in order that these
might by faith cling the more firmly to the promise of the
forgiveness of their sins. Common people, he said, need not
6nter into great discussions regarding the power of Peter and
of the Pope; it is of much greater importance that they
know how to apply the power of the keys for their souls'
benefit. i''3) This sermon, spoken in the plainest style, but
with the quiet firmness and warm glow of a deep conviction,
made a powerful impression upon the hearers. Forthwith
Eck was induced to announce that he would preach on the
next festival day at St. Nicholas' Church. He preached
another time, and all churches were open to him. Caesar
Pflug remarked when he heard of Luther's sermon, "I wish
he had saved his sermon for his Wittenbergers."

On July 1, at eight in the morning, Carlstadt resumed
his argument. He charged Eck with having contradicted
himself, because he had asserted at the beginning of the de-
bate that man's free will possesses a special and natural
power of its own for the exercise of good works, while now
he declared that it possesses no other activity than such as is
communicated by divine grace. Eck denied the first part of
this statement, claiming that he had never said that. In the
same breath, however, he said that the activity which he
ascribed to man's free will is distinct from God's activity,
and when grace begins to operate upon man's free will, it
confers upon free will an activity which is then the activity
of man's free will, and may be called a special activity, but

173) XI, 2306 ff.

126 14. CAELSTADT VEBSUS ECK.

it is a supernatural one. Some activity like- this/ he said,
must always be admitted in the operations of man's will;
according to Jerome man's will is independent and free to
engage either in a good or evil action. Carlstadt objected
that the same effect cannot be ascribed to two causes in such
a way that we can claim that it was produced entirely by
either cause. Eck answered that an effect can indeed spring
from two causes, but neither cause produces the entire effect ;
free will is always subordinate to divine grace. Carlstadt
called this argument of Eck Aristotelian hair-splitting and
a useless distinction; moreover, he reminded Eck that his
authorities, Capreolus and Scotus, declare man's free will to
be the principal cause of good and meritorious works. Eck
interposed: Nevertheless they teach that free will is in-
capable of -a good work without the grace of God. Carl-
stadt now asked Eck to define what share in any good work
free will can claim as man's peculiar product. Eck dodged
the question by saying, a good work cannot be divided. At
this point the meeting was adjourned, fortunately for Eck.
At four in the afternoon Carlstadt arose to declare that
Eck's citation from Jerome was from a writing that was con-
sidered spurious. He tried to- prove from Augustine and
from the collects used in the service at church that God
alone effects entirely whatever good works we do, while the'
scholastics teach neither that an entire good work, nor that
a good work entirely, proceeds from God. If Eck, he said,
admits the former, he teaches better doctrine than the scho-
lastics. Eck answered that he had cited the passage from
Jerome because the treatise from which he had quoted is
commonly' ascribed to Jerome. He declared that in the be-
ginning of conversion man's free will is purely passive. Aa
to the scholastics, he asserted that Thomas of Strassburg
teaches indeed that good works proceed entirely from God.
The session was now adjourned until Sunday, when Carlstadt
began to complain that Eck would not permit citations to be
read from books. He also declared that Augustine and Ber-
nard derived all good works from God alone. Eck replied
that nevertheless these fathers admitted an . operation of

14. CABLSTADT VERSUS EOK. 127

man's free will. They say that good works spring from {ex)
the grace of God alone; this term ex they use to designate
the radical principle, or the origin. They do not use this
term in connection with man's free will. Carlstadt now
tried to prove with citations from Augustine, Cyril, and
Gregory that good works are entirely from God, and he asked
Eck the direct question whether he admitted this. Eck re-
plied that notwithstanding the quotations that had been intro-
duced he was sure that the fathers admitted an independent
activity of the human will, because they say that grace is an
auxiliary to man's free will. The ability to do good, he said,
is also a pure gift of God. Now, in a good work man co-
operates VTith God, hence the good work which he does is not
something that he receives as a pure and total present. Carl-
stadt asked, What activity is there in a rod with which
a teacher beats his pupil? Eck replied, None; for the rod
is a dead instrument, but there are also animate instruments.
Carlstadt now cited Is. 10, 15 : "Let not the rod shake itself
[that is, glory] against them that lift it up." If good works,
he said, are entirely of God, man cannot glory. Eck declared
that he claimed no glory for man, but only an activity. Carl-
stadt asked him to state in what theologian he had found the
term "totally" in this connection, that good works are en-
tirely of God. Eck replied that the term "consubstantial"
(which.is used to describe the coequality of Christ with God)
is not found either in any of the fathers before the Council
of Nicea. Here the crier announced that the first half of
the debate was closed, and that Luther would take up the
debate with Eck on the morrow. i''*)'

This brief summary, no doubt, impresses the reader as
very tedious. The actual debate was still more so. ' In end-
less repetitions, with only slight variations, the disputants
circled around the same point without settling anything.
Theologically considered, the debate was a complete failure,
and we are not surprised to read in the report of the chroni-
clers of the debate that the reverend fathers of the faculty,

174) Wiedemann, p. 100 £E. Loescher, I. c. III, 293 — 330.

128 14. CABLSTADT VEESTJS ECK.

the doctors from abroad, and tlie honorable citizens of Leip-
zig, under the double influence of the summer heat and the
opiate of Carlstadt's speaking gently fell asleep, and some-
times had to be roused at the end of a session, while the stu-
dents left in disgust to find a cooler place and better enter-
tainment. The only really attentive listener, besides Duke
George and the Wittenberg theologians, was Duke Barnim,
who had placed himself so that he could hear every word
that Carlstadt spoke, and observe his every movement.

Nature and grace had not favored Carlstadt. Over and
against the tall, portly Eck with his dapper appearance and
jaimty airs the little sallow professor from Wittenberg with
his hollow, monotonous voice, his poor memory, and his
nervous and irritable temper made a very poor showing. He
was habitually confused, had to hunt among his notes for the
remark which he was going to make when his turn came to
speak, always came into the hall with a load of ponderous
tomes, which he was incessantly searching without finding
what he wanted, and to the unconcealed enjoyment of the
Leipzigers became completely disconcerted by a specious ob-
jection, or a glittering phrase, or some peroration of Eck
that was delivered with great pathos. Standing nonplussed
for a few moments, he would finally say that he would answer
Eck's remark the next day. Eck came into each session
smiling, bowing right and left, bandying polite and facetious
remarks with everybody, eliciting smiles and laughter, and
looking at his poor victim at the other end of the hall with
mock sympathy. Sometimes he would come into the hall
still carrying his riding-whip, to show that he had just come
in from an exhilarating ride and had not considered it neces-
sary to make special preparations for the debate. When he
spoke, it was with a strong, sonorous voice, full of the pectoral
tones of 'Conviction. He was never at a loss what to say,
interlarded his speech with interesting illustrations, moving
appeals, and some humor, and was quick at repartee.

Luther groaned inwardly as he sat through the weary
sessions from Monday till the next Sunday. In a letter to
a friend he summed up his judgment of the debate thus :

15. A MEMORABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (FORENOON.) 129

Male dispidatvm est; perditio temporis; that is, The de-
bating has been wretched ; a sheer murdering of time. Years
after he still remembered the tortures which he had under-
gone while watching the labored efforts of his incapable
colleague, and remarked to the guests at his table : "He dis-
honored, instead of honoring, our cause. He is a most un-
happy debater, of an appallingly dull mind." The Witten-
bergers were hanging their heads in shame during this ordeal.
Thus matters stood on the eve of July 4, 1519.

15. A Memorable Fourth of July.

(Forenoon.)

Luther had yielded to the pressure exerted upon him by
friends and foes, and had subscribed to the conditions of the
debate as they had been arranged between Carlstadt and Eck.
That is what the announcement of the crier at the close of
the first half of the Carlstadt-Eck debate meant. But in
accepting the notaries and the judges, Luther had reserved
the right of appeal. The other side had accepted this con-
dition in silence. Thus Luther served notice on his adver-
saries that he understood their object: they calculated that,
no matter how the debate might result, they were always sure
of the verdict of the final court. By his reservation Luther
gave them to understand that that verdict would not be final.

While the preliminaries between Carlstadt and Eck were
being arranged, Emser had approached him, and with a great
show of pious fervor had solemnly adjured Luther to proceed
very gently and use moderation in his debate, in order that
sacred truth might be duly honored by its defenders, and
the glory of God be magnified. Luther read the mind also
of this hypocrite and replied, "This affair was not begun with
God, and it will not be ended with God." We have noted
before how Emser, this sanctimonious lover of peace and
gentleness, had been busy filling the hearts of the Leipzig
clergy with hatred and malice against Luther. One day

DAU, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 9

130 15- A MEMORABLE FOURTH OF JTJI.Y. (FORENOON.)

Luther had chanced into the church of the Paulinians: the
mass priests were at the main altar;' others were reading
mass at side-altars. When Luther's presence became known,
they all grabbed the holy vessels as though these might be-
come contaminated by the presence of the "Bohemian," and
hurried with them into the sacristy. At the home of the
printer Herbipolis our good chronicler Froeschel used to take
his meals. One day he was dining together with Dr. Metzler
from Breslau, who had come to attend the debate, and Metz-
ler was telling Froeschel his experiences in Italy, whence he
had recently returned, when a friar by the name of Baum-
gaertner, one of Tetzel's partners, came in and began to abuse
the Wittenbergers in such a foul manner that Herbipolis had
to call in a halberdier, and kept him at his house for the
time of the debate to preserve peace.

Luther had observed all these malicious machinations of
his opponents and yet consented, for God's sake and for the
poor people's sake, to join in the debate. It is remarkable
that the chroniclers of the events during the debate all have
noted the absence of all squeamishness, sullenness, and resent-
ment in Luther's conduct during his days in Leipzig. He
showed himself evenly friendly and courteous to all whom he
met; he seemed to fit into any company that he happened
to join. He did not assume proud and distant airs, shroud-
ing himself in the austere silence of conscious superiority,
but was genial, pleasant, and kind, without the least affecta-
tion and without any intention of currying favor; in a word,
he was as natural as men could wish to see any one who
comes into their circles. His countenance was placid, indi-
cating a mind at rest. His great application to work and
his monkish exercises had left their traces on it: he was
lean and pale, but there was nothing of the acidity of the
hypochondriac in him. When he spoke, his clear, ringing
voice was very pleasing to the ear. Still more his wealth of
information, the ease with which he discoursed on the gravest
questions, and the striking, noble, and comforting conclusions
to which he led up in his talk, charmed the hearers.

The hall of the Pleissenburg was ■ thronged with eager

15. A MEMORABLE FOUKTH OF JtTLY. (FOEENOON.) 131

spectators at seven in the morning on Monday, July 4, when
Luther rose and spoke: "In the name of the Lord. Amen.
I accept and submit to the terms of this debate with the
excellent Dr. John Eck. I only add that from reverence
for the Supreme Pontiff and the Roman Church I should
gladly have avoided this subject, because it is unnecessary
and creates an astonishing amount of odium against one;
but I was drawn into it by the thesis of the excellent Dr. Eck.
I am also pained to observe that those are not present who
ought to be here before others; I mean those who have
privately and publicly so often sullied my name with the
vile charge of heresy. Now that my cause is about to receive
a hearing, they have withdrawn themselves — these inquisi-
tors of the depravity of heresy who have neglected fraternal
admonition and instruction and used incriminations in-
stead." A fine exordium — was it not? So speaks a man
who has a good conscience before God and men. The one
man who should have been there before all the rest was in
his last agonies that morning a few streets away. We shall
refer to him later.

Eck- began : In Thy name, sweet Jesus. Before I enter
the lists, I protest before you, most illustrious, noble, mag-
nificent, and excellent lords, that all I shall say or have said
shall be submitted, first of all, to the judgment of the First
Seat and of the Lord sitting in the same ; next, to the judg-
ment of any others whose business it may be to correct the
erring and lead them back to the knowledge of the truth.
INTow, the reverend father in his opening remarks, by way of
excusing himself, as it were, asserts that out of reverence for
the Supreme Pontiff he would gladly have avoided this sub-
ject if he had not been drawn into it by my thesis. But the
reverend father will remember that if he had not first de-
clared, in a set of resolutions, that before the times of Sil-
vester the Koman Pontiff was not above the rest, it would
not have been necessary for me to draw up my thirteenth
thesis. Moreover, in the protocol of his conference with the
Legate of the Apostolic See [at Augsburg] he charges that
the blessed Pope Pelagius has twisted the evangelical Scrip-

132 15. A MBMOEABia FOTJBTH OF JULY. (FOBENOON.)

tures, and yet this Pope, more than all the rest, received the
words of Christ as they were interpreted by the holy fathers.
In vain, therefore, the reverend father puts the blame for
this business on me, for he furnished the occasion for it more
than once. But I shall waive these digressions, and, God
directing me, address myself to our principal object.

Reverend father, your thirteenth thesis in opposition to
mine affirms that the Roman Church is superior to others
only according to the worthless decretals Roman pontiffs
have issued within the last four hundred years. You say
that this is contradicted by the text of Holy Writ and by
the approved history of eleven hundred years. (Luther had
added, what Eck omitted : ''and by the decree of the Coun-
cil of Nicea, the holiest of all.") Against your position
I assert: There is a monarchy and a single principality in
the Church by divine right, and instituted by Christ. There-
fore, Holy Scripture and approved history do not contradict
this. Tor this Church militant, which is like one body, as
Paul says, is ordained and fashioned after the image of the
Church triumphant, in which there is one monarchy over all
subjects, they being arranged in ranks up to the one Head,
namely God. A like order therefore was set up on earth by
Christ, for He declares, John 5, that the Son does nothing
but what He sees the Father do. Hence he is not from
heaven who refuses to be under the Head, just as he is not
from heaven, but from Lucifer, who will not submit to God.
All this I could establish at great length, especially by that
devoted soul, the blessed Dionysius Areopagita, who says in
his book on the Heavenly Hierarchy : "Our hierarchy is re-
ligiously arranged in orders which God ordained, and is con-
formed to the heavenly hierarchies of the saints." Likewise
Gregory ISTazianzen says in his Apologeticus that "sacred
mysteries are being celebrated after a heavenly pattern, and
thus we are, while still on earth, formed into one society with
the heavenly orders." What a monster would the Church be
without a head ! All heretics — as St. Cyprian indicates in
his letter to Rogatianus and Puppianus — have "tried to
bring this about that the Head might be destroyed, and they

15. A MEMOBABLE FOUKTH OP JULY. (FOEENOON.) 133

might then with impunity plant their errors and their poison
in the minds of men." This was the principal reason, with
others annexed, why the flourishing Paris imiversity con-
demned John of Tornais, who denied the primacy of the
Eoman Church. Similar to this was the error of Wyclif,
viz., that the Roman Church is not, by order of the Gospel,
above the rest.

Luther: When the Doctor argues that there is one \mi-
versal Head of the Church, he says very well. If there is.
any one who by some private covenant has agreed to defend
the opposite, let him step forth. This argument does not
concern me.

Uch: The reverend father says that what I intended to
prove does not concern him, namely, that there is by divine
right a monarchy in the Church militant just as in the
Church triumphant. I praise him for this statement, for he
agrees with John, who says in Revelation : "I saw a new holy
city descending," etc. But let us approach the matter some-
what more closely: If the Church militant has not been
without a monarchy, I should like to be told what other
monarch there is or ever has been except the Roman Pontiff,
or what other primary chair there has been except the Chair
of Peter and his successors. This accords with what the
blessed Cyprian says in his second epistle to the Roman Pope
Cornelius against the Ifovatians, who were stealthily coming
into Rome: "Under a bishop set up by heretics they dare
to sail hither and bring letters from heretics and profane
persons to the Chair of Peter and the principal Church, where
sacerdotal unity takes its origin, and they do not consider
that these are the Romans whose faith was praised by the
apostle, and to whom faithless persons can have no access."
Likewise Jerome declares against the Luciferians : "The wel-
fare of the Church depends on the dignity of the Supreme
Priest; for if no extraordinary power eminent above all 'the
rest is given him, there will arise in the Church as many
schisms as there are priests." That this Supreme Priest is
the Roman Pontiff appears from the two epistles of the same
Jerome to the Pope Damasus. Nearly every woi:d in these

134 15. A MEMORABLE FOUETH OF JUI.Y. (FOKEWOON.)

epistles relates to our subject, but for the sake of brevity
I shall note only the following: "I am speaking with the
successor of the fisherman and disciple of Christ. Seeking
no reward except Christ, I wish to share your blessedness,
namely, I want to be associated with the Chair of Peter.
I know that upon that Eock the Church is founded." Fur-
ther on he says : "Whoever does not gather with thee scat-
tereth." Every good Christian easily gathers from these
statements that sacerdotal unity flows from the Roman Pon-
tiff, and that this has always been the principal seat, pre-
ferred before all others, and that it is that Eock of which
Jerome says that he laiows the Church is built upon it.
ISTow let the reverend father indicate another' monarchy in
the Church in former times.

Luther: That there is a monarchy in the Church mili-
tant, and that its head is not a man, but Christ Himself,
I fully profess, and that on divine authority. In 1 Cor. 15
we read: "He must reign until all enemies are put under
His feet." A few verses before that the apostle says : "Then
Cometh the end, when He shall deliver the kingdom to God
and the Father, w^en He shall have abolished all rule and
all authority and power." This Augustine in the first book
on the Trinity, in the last chapter, interprets of the kingdom
of Christ at the present time. It appears, then, that Christ
transfers to us, who are His kingdom. His likeness by faith.
Likewise, in the last chapter of Matthew He says : "Lo, I am
with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Again,
Paul, Acts 9, heard a voice from heaven : "Saul, Saul, why
persecutest thou Me?" on which Augustine remarks: "The
Head stands for His members." Accordingly, we must not
listen at all to persons who push Christ out of the Church
militant into the Church triumphant; for His kingdom is
one 'of faith, that is, we do not see our Head, and yet we
have Him for our Head, according to Ps. 122 : "There are
set thrones of judgment over the house of David," l''^) that

175) The speakers at this debate quoted the Bible in the Latin Vul-
gate translation.

15. A MEMOKABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (FORENOON.) 135

is, there are many thrones on ' %vhich sits the one Christ.
We see the seats, but not Him who sits on them, the King.
Now, to take up the authorities of our excellent Doctor,
when he says that there exists by divine right, and instituted
by Christ, one principality, he gives us his opinion, but he
proves nothing. For his first authority, Paul, especially in
Eph. 4, .where he says that Christ is the Head of the Church,
proves for me and not for him; for he certainly speaks of
the Church militant and calls Christ its Head. There is
another passage that is against him, 1 Cor. 3: "What is
ApoUos? What is Cephas? What is Paul? Is Christ di-
vided?" etc. Here any other Head than Christ is plainly
ruled out. His second authority is John 5 : "The Son can-
not do anything but what He seeth the Father do." This
refers neither to the Church militant nor to the Church
triumphant, but, as all the doctors hold, to the equality of
the Son with the Father; the Father namely does, and can
do, nothing but what the Son does, and is able to do. I pass
over his remark that he is not of heaven who refuses to be
under the Head, and that he is of Lucifer who will not be
subject to God; for just as his authorities were badly cited,
so this remark was badly inserted by him. In the third
place, his citation from Dionysius proves nothing against
me; for I do not deny the ecclesiastical hierarchy, but the
point I am debating refers to the head, not of the monarchy,
but of the hierarchy. In the fourth place, his citation from
Gregory Nazianzen, that by our sacred mysteries we asso-
ciate with the heavenly orders, is understood by every one
who knows grammar to say nothing either of a monarchy
or of a head. I admit, what he adds, that the Church with-
out a head would be a monstrum; but for this head even
the Doctor cannot give us any one else than Christ. I can
make this quite evident: If his head, which he calls the
Eoman Pontiff, dies, being human, then the Church is with-
out a head. If in the mean time Christ is the Head of the
Church until another Pope is elected, is it less monstrous
to hold that Christ yields His place to a living Pope, and
only takes the place of a dead one? His fifth citation, from

136 15. A MEMORABLE FOUETH OF JTJLT. (fOBENOON.)

St. Cyprian, who sets upon the heretics that undertake to
destroy the head, in order that they may with impunity sow
their errors among men, is not to the point at all. For
Cyprian is not speaking of the Eoman hishop, but of the
head of any diocese. If our excellent Doctor will stand by
his authority Cyprian, we shall close the debate this minute.
Tor Cyprian never salutes the Eoman Pontiff in any other
way than as his very dear brother. Besides, throughout his
epistles, when speaking of the election and confirmation of
bishops (pastors), he shows most convincingly that this right
belongs to the people who exercise it with the aid of two or
three bishops from the neighborhood, and this practise has
been sanctioned by the most holy Council of ISTicea. Tea,
this blessed martyr, as Augustine relates in his second book
on Baptism, chap. 2, says : "None of us sets himself up to
be a bishop over bishops, or by some tyrannical infatuation
lays upon his colleagues the necessity of obeying him, be-
cause every bishop, in the privilege of his liberty and
authority, is his own master; as he cannot be judged by any
other, so he judges no one ; but let us all abide the judgment
of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the universe.'' His remark
that at Eome and at the Seat of Peter originated sacerdotal
unity, I grant quite freely, with reference to the Western
Church. But in reality the Roman Church sprang from the
Church at Jerusalem, and this latter is properly the mother
of all churches. But the inference which he draws is worth-
less : since sacerdotal unity has its origin in the Roman
Church, therefore that Church is the head and first mistress
over all; with his logic he might establish beyond question
that Jerusalem is the head and lord over all churches. His
last authority, Jerome, even if he were altogether reliable,
has not been correctly quoted by our excellent Doctor; he
intends to prove that the monarchical power of the Roman
Church exists by divine right and has been instituted by
Christ. Jerome's words do not say this. His remark:
"There would be as many schisms in the Church as there
are bishops, imless some extraordinary power eminent over
all others were given him," means : Let us assume that this

15. A MEMOBABU; FOUKTH OF JULY. { FOEENOON. ) 137

could be done by buman rigbt, all the rest of tbe believers
giving their consent. Por I myself do not deny that if the
believers throughout the world were to agree on a first and
supreme pontiii at Rome, Paris, Magdeburg, or anywhere else,
this person ought to be regarded as the highest monarch out
of respect for the entire Church of believers who are thus
agreed. But this has never happened, nor is it happening
now, nor will it ever happen; for down to our times the
Greek Church has given no such consent, and yet has not
been regarded as heretical. That this is Jerome's meaning
I prove from his epistle to Evagrius, where he says:
"Wherever there may be a bishop, whether at Rome, or
Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria,
or Thanae, his worth and episcopal office is the same. The
influence of wealth and the humiliation of poverty may make
one sublime, the other lowly; nevertheless all are successors
of the apostles." "We find the epistle cited in Decretals that
are not woTthless, in the 93d distinction. In his commentary
on Titus the same author says: "The presbyter is the same
as the bishop, and ere by the devil's prompting there came
to be competition in religious affairs and people were saying,
'I am of Paul, I of Cephas,' the churches were governed by
a joint coimcil of the presbyters. Afterwards, when each
presbyter thought that those who had been baptized by him
belonged to him, the rule was made for the whole circuit
that one presbyter should be chosen to be above the rest."
^Vud citing Scripture-proof, he says toward the end: "Ac-
■cordingly, as the presbyters knew that by a custom of the
Church they were subject to the person that was placed over
them, so the bishops knew that they were above the pres-
byters in consequence of a custom rather than of any ar-
rangement of true overlordship." The Doctor's remark, that
Jerome had referred to the Supreme Pontiff at Rome when
he said: "I am speaking with the successor of the fisher-
man and disciple of Christ, and I am an associate of his
happiness, that is, of the Seat of Peter; I know that the
Church is built on that Rock," is irrelevant. It does not
follow that because I associate with this particular church.

138 15. A MEMOBABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (FOKBNOON.)

therefore it is the first. It does not follow that because this
church is built upon the Eock, therefore it alone is thus
built up. Add to this the decree of the African council in
the 99th distinction, chap. 1 : "The bishop of the first seat
shall not be called the prince of priests nor the supreme
priest, nor by any similar title, but only the bishop of the
first seat. Nor shall the Bishop of Rome be called the uni-
versal pontiff." Now, if the monarchy of the Eoman Pontiif
exists by divine right, all these statements would be heresy,
which it would be rash to assert. 'To conclude, let us hear
our Lord Himself, who says Luke 22: "There was also
a strife among them which of them should be accounted the
greatest. And He said unto them. The kings of the Gentiles
exercise lordship over them ; and they that exercise authority
upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so:
but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger."

This argument shows with what success Luther had pur-
sued his historical studies on the origin of the papacy when
he whispered that remark into Spalatin's ear on March 13.

Ech: The reverend father has entered the lists quite well
informed; he has his materials arranged in good order in
the book which he has written and published. Accordingly,
your most illustrious lordships, excellencies, and principali-
ties will pardon Eck, who has for a long time been engrossed
with other business, if he is not able on the spot to heap up
such a well-rounded and accurately worded pile of arguments
as the reverend father has done. For I came here to debate,
not to publish a book. But let us take up in order what the
reverend father has said. First of all, he means to prove
that Christ is the Head of the Church, which is quite
superfluous, because no one presumes to deny this, unless he
be Antichrist. I am greatly surprised, however, that he does
not reflect that in the protocol of his conference with the
Legate of the Apostolic See he promises to produce a certain
jurist and theologian who says that there can be several sub-
ordinate heads in whom there appears the character of
a mystical or symbolical head, distinct from that of the real
head. This will prove at once that besides Christ we must

15. A MEMORABLE FOURTH OP JULY. (FORENOON.) 139

look for anotlier head in the Church. Nor does his quota-
tion from 1 Cor. 3 : "Is Christ divided ?" favor his side. For
although Paul mentions Peter in that passage, still the blessed
Jerome in his First Book against Jovinian, col. 18, spoke
truly when he said: "One is chosen, in order that by the
appointment of a head the occasion for a schism might be
removed." He refers, to Peter, and clearly states that Peter
has been appointed head of the Church. But we dismiss
this; we merely wished to repel false conclusions that have
been drawn from what we set forth.

In the first place, he says in reply to my quotation from
John 5 : "The Son can do nothing except what He seeth
the Father do," that according to all the holy fathers there
is here expressed the equality of the Father with the Son.
But let the reverend father, please, read more attentively the
Messed father who could not be flattered, Bernard, in his
third book to Eugenius on Meditation. Speaking of the
form of the Church, and maintaining that it exists by divine
■ right, he supports my argument in col. 7 : "We do not regard
its form as vile because of its being here on earth ; it has its
model in heaven. For not even 'the Son can do anything but
what He sees the Father do,' especially since this was said to
Him under the name of Moses : 'See that you do all after
the pattern which wks shown thee on the mountain.' He
that had seen it is he who said : 'I saw the holy city,' etc.
And now I am faulted for having declared something to have
been said by way of analogy.; for as yonder the seraphim
and cherubim and all the rest are arranged in ranks down to
the angels and archangels, with God as their one Head, so
here, too, there are arranged in like manner under one Su-
preme Pontiff the primates or patriarchs, the archbishops, the
bishops, the presbyters, or abbots, and the rest." Then Ber-
nard adds : "This is not to be regarded lightly that it has
G-od for its Author and draws its origin from heaven." Who
does not see that this ecclesiastical hierarchy, as Bernard
views it, has been instituted by Christ, and that, as God is
the Head in heaven, so the Supreme Pontiff is the head in
the Church militant? However, in no way is he the head by

140 15. A MEMOBABLE FOTJRTH OF JULY. (FOEENOON.)

exclusion of Christ, for he professes himself the Vicar of
Christ. Now as to the little vulgar reasoning which he intro-
duced when he said that the Church would be headless at the
death of a Pope, unless we would say that Christ cedes His
place to a living and takes the place only of a dead Pope,
which would be ridiculous: that is an altogether facetious
reasoning, which is hardly worthy of being repeated in such
a serious matter and in the presence of such excellent men;
for I said at the start that the head of which I speak is
a symbolical head, in some respects differing essentially from
the true and natural head. Nor does Christ, whose kingdom
remains forever, and whose priesthood is everlasting, cede His
place to the Pope or come in the Pope's place; for to Him
is given all power in heaven and earth. Matt. 28. And on the
death of the Pope the college of cardinals forthwith, as in
the death of a bishop the chapter, holds those rights, until
a new pontiff is elected.

In the second place, as to the remark of the reverend
father that Cyprian is speaking, not of the Eoman Pontiff,
but of any bishop, I wonder very much whether the meaning
of statements must not be learned from the reasons for
making them, and whether Cyprian, in the passages which
I quoted, is not chiding those who fell away from Cornelius,
who certainly was the Eoman Pontiff. Let me therefore tell
the reverend father that I am not satisfied with mere words,
on which we usually feed sophists. I believe that what in his
reply he quotes from Cyprian for his side will prove cumu-
lative evidence for my contention. For as regards Cyprian's
calling Cornelius brother, everybody knows that even the
apostles were brethren; nevertheless Peter, and also his suc-
cessor Cornelius, was the head, the apex and pinnacle, of the
apostles, according to the statement of the blessed Dionysius
in chap. 3 or 7 of his treatise on the Divine Names. What
Cyprian has recorded about the election of bishops and about
the Council of Nicea neither helps nor hinders the business
we have now in hand; still less should Augustine, in his
second book on the Baptism of Infants, chap. 2, be cited after
Cyprian. For Augustine chastises the arrogance and bold-

15. A. MEMORABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (FORENOON.) 141

ness of those who push themselves into the ecclesiastical
prelacies by ambition and pride; for they should not set
themselves up in these positions nor force others to set them
up, since every prelate should wait till he is called, even as
Aaron did.

In the third place, explaining a statement of Cyprian in
his second epistle to Cornelius, he says that sacerdotal unity
had its origin in the Eoman, not in the Eastern Church. At
this point the reverend father failed to mention that Cyprian
has in a preceding chapter called the Eoman church the chair
of Peter and the principal church. But what his explanation
amounts to is manifest to any one who looks to the very
marrow of the words; for in a mere grammatical view of
the words the reverend father understands Cyprian as speak-
ing of the origin of sacerdotal unity as regards its inaugu-
ration and start, while Cyprian, to be sure, wished to explain
that origin as regards its transfer, subordination, and flowing
into others, so that from the one Peter, as the head, the juris-
diction was handed down to all the rest; otherwise he will
not obtain one priest at all, not even at Jerusalem. I shall
say nothing about the little gloss which he added concerning
the Eastern Church; for that does not help him, since the
blessed Jerome, writing from the East, in the beginning of
his epistle, calls the Eastern Church heretical for the reason
that it has to no purpose torn into shreds the garment of the
Lord which was undivided, having been woven in one piece.
Jerome says: "The foxes destroy the vine of Christ," re-
ferring, no doubt, to that complaint of the bride in Can-
ticles: "Take me the little foxes that spoil the vine." Let
the reverend father, I pray, quit mentioning and insulting
us with the Greeks and Orientals, who have become exiles
from the Christian Church when they fell away from the
Eoman Church. It is established, then, in what sense our
inference: The Church is the root, therefore it is the mis-
tress, must be taken; we do not speak of it as the root in
point of time or actual beginning, but in point of transfer
and leading position.

In the fourth place, the reverend father strives to extri-

142 15. A MEMOHABLB FOTJETH OF JULY. (rOEBNOON.)

cate himself from the words of Jerome and to escape them;
for he grants indeed that the highest dignity may ■ be ac-
corded the Supreme Pontiff, but this must be done by human
right. But why does the blessed Jerome call Damasus the
successor of the fisherman and wish to be associated with the
chair of Peter ? He cites that divine saying in Matt. 16 and
says : "I know that upon ihat Rock the Church is built." As
Bernard reasons, this cannot be said of the other churches;
and, alas ! to the greatest injury of Christians we have lived
to see that the gates of hell did prevail against the church
of Jerusalem, Antioeh, Alexandria, and, you may add, of
Bohemia; but the inviolable truth of Christ has not per-
mitted this to happen to the church that is built upon Peter.
But those who are of the faith regard it as very true what
Jerome says in the same epistle : " 'Where the carcass is,
there will the eagles gather.' After a corrupt' offspring has
wasted its paternal inheritance, the authority of the fathers,
incorrupt in every point, is preserved among you alone."
However, we have sufficiently established this principal point
that the primacy belongs to the Eoman Church not by human,
but by divine right.

However, it is best to throw some light on the citations
which the reverend father has made for his side from Jerome;
first, in his epistle to Evagrius, where he says that the worth
and ministry of the bishops of Pome, Eugubium, Constanti-
nople, and Rhegium are the same. We knew this before the
Theognis was bom that was to tell us this. Eor the papacy
is not an order outside of the episcopate; hence in another
place Jerome says that the apostles were equals, without, how-
ever, depriving St. Peter of the primacy. Secondly, as re-,
gards the urgent demand which the reverend father has made
upon me, not to digress, — which, by the way, I am not in
the habit of doing, — I wish to say that I have read the very
canon from which he has quoted the 93d distinction. This
leads me to the pointed question which the canonists and
theologians discuss, viz., whether the order of the episcopate
is distinguished by a special mark and has been added to the
general priesthood. I shall not decide this question, because

15. A MEMOEABU: FOTJBTH OF JULY. (FORENOON.) 143

it is beside the subject, but, reserving the right to form
a better opinion, I shall say that it seems clear to me that
in the first Church there was no such confusion that a bishop
was not distinguished from a priest, for the twelve apostles
are superior to the seventy-two disciples. As witness for this
assertion I quote the blessed Dionysius, who is older than
Jerome and a hierarch in the primitive Church. In his book
on the Hierarchy of the Church he places the episcopate and
the Supreme Hierarch among the sacred orders, and tells
how they are to be ordained. I agree with him, and hold
that from the beginning of the Church the bishops were
superior to the common priesthood. Thirdly, he has quoted
a canon of the African council, dist. 99 of the first canon,
where the council forbids calling the Roman bishop a uni-
versal bishop, and he has also cited the prohibition of Christ
in Luke 22 : "The secular princes rule," etc. I answer : The
proud name of a universal bishop has indeed been forbidden,
not as if there ever had been a time when the Roman Pope
was not regarded as the first and supreme bishop by every true
Christian, but because a bishop, particularly of Rome, is not
the ordinary bishop of each and every church, but he is the
first because otherwise the lower bishops would not be ac-
corded their proper honor. But it is not wrong to call the
Roman bishop the universal instead of the first bishop. More
correct, however, it is, instead of calling him universal bishop,
to call him the bishop of the Church universal, just as we
call him the Vicar of Christ. The Lord's rebuke of the am-
bitious quarreling of the apostles, which was of the kind we
meet with among worldly people, does not destroy the su-
premacy of the Roman Church ; but our Lord means to teach
the lesson which St. Gregory was the first to recognize and
practise when he declared that he had been placed at the head
of the Roman Church, in order that he might regard him-
self as the servant of servants. That their successors may
become such we should endeavor to obtain for them from
God by prayer, but we should not attack them with abuse.
Here the session was adjourned to be opened again at
two in the afternoon. Luther had spoken in a calm and dis-

J44 15. A MBMOEABLE FOUBTH OF JULY. (FOBENOON.)

passionate manner, and his audience had hung upon his lips,
devouring his lucid presentation of the argiunents for his
side. Eck had tried to outdo himself in oratorical effort;
slowly, but surely, however, he had felt that the undisputed
mastery which had so far belonged to him was slipping away
from him. The green-eyed shavelings in his rear, of course,
rolled their eyes in pious delight, and vigorously expressed
their approval at the strong passages in Eck's speeches, and
the overwhelming majority in the audience was still on Eck's
side; but, owing to the irresistible force that lies in truth
and sincerity, not a few men in the great crowd were be-
ginning to feel the tugging at the roots of the heart which
is the precursor of an inward change in sentiment and judg-
ment. It was remarked after this first session that Brother
Martin had spoken very acceptably, that he had a wonderful
knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, and an excellent way of
making them very plain to the people, and that he had com-
plete command of his subject. It was acknowledged likewise
that he had handled his subject, which was not only delicate,
but odious, with consummate skill. And then the great flow
of words that was at his command! It had been a real
pleasure to listen to him. On the other hand, Eck had riot
been able with all his skill and special effort to avoid two
faults: at least twice he had lost his temper; his first reply
to Luther was but the angry retort of a combatant who has
felt the power of his opponent. Did not the pious Emser
shed tears at that moment? Petty resentment was also ap-
parent" throughout his review of Luther's citation from the
fathers. This was a domain in which Eck believed himself
master, and now there had appeared one who, while known
not to bow slavishly to the fathers, showed that he under-
stood them even better than Eck. It is a queer fact, which
a close study of the protocol of this debate reveals, that Eck
winced more under the patristic than under the Scriptural
arguments of Luther. He was noticeably weak in his
Scripture-proofs, while Luther massed his striking texts for
a powerful charge upon his opponent. But that he would

16. A MEMOKABLE FOUBTH OF JTHY. (ATTEKNOON.) 145

have to consider himself defeated also by arguments from
the fathers was an unbearable thought to Eck.

Eek's second fault, however, was still more fatal. He was
plainly unfair to Luther when he implied that Luther had
learned his arguments by heart from the book he had pub-
lished. Eck had preceded Luther ; how could the latter know
in advance what he would have to say in reply to him?
Again, it had been Eck who had introduced the thought of
the headless Church ; when he saw what capital Luther could
make of that thought, when Luther showed him to what
that thought must lead, Eck with theatrical disgust and in-
dignation declared the utterance of that thought an act of
disrespect to such a noble audience. Last, not least, his whole
interpretation of the citations from the fathers which Luther
had introduced, partly in review of Eck's speech, partly to
make his own point, abounds in sophisms, not only of the
subtle kind, but also of the broadest and coarsest kind. One
is astonished at some of the interpretations which he at-
tempts, and one imagines he must have blushed when he
uttered them.

16. A Memorable Fourth of July.

(Afternoon.)

Leading o£E in the discussion in the afternoon, Luther
said: In my first rejoinder I showed from 1 Cor. 3, 4 that
Paul has forbidden believers to choose Cephas or Paul or
Apollos as their head. This the excellent Doctor has refuted
in the following way : Although Paul mentions Peter in that
place, still Jerome in his treatise against Jovinian has not
incorrectly said: "One is chosen, because by the election of
a head the occasion for schisms is removed." He clearly
calls Peter the head that was appointed for the Church. Eck
added: "But I shall let this pass." — I reply: I shall not
let myself be forced by a minor testimony that has been
introduced to give up a greater ; not even Jerome is so great
that on his account I should drop Paul. Eor we have in

DAU, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 10

146 16. A MEMOBABLE FOUKTH OF JULY. (AFTERNOON.)

this text not a mere mention of Peter by Paul, ai my oppo-
nent puts it in an effort to weaken the text, but with all his
force Paul teaches and forbids anybody to say that he is of
Peter. That is the reason why this chapter closes as follows :
"All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas,
or the world, or life, or death. And ye are Christ's, and
Christ is God's." (1 Cor. 3, 21 ff.) Hence the argument in
my reply is not defeated yet, and if it is not met with
stronger arguments, I shall confront all the past and future
arguments of the Doctor with it. For the Word of God is
above all the words of men.

In reference to Jerome, I, too, say that I shall pass him
by, because the passage, as the Doctor well noticed, is very
ambiguous.

In my second rejoinder I referred to John 5, 19 and said
that Christ is speaking of His equality in power with the
Pather. The Doctor, as we heard, asked me to read St. Ber-
nard with better attention; for this father refers the pas-
sage to the Church militant. I answer : I hold St. Bernard
in honor and do not despise his opinion, but in a controversy
we must go back to the true and proper meaning of Scrip-
ture, which can stand the test in debate. But the holy
fathers occasionally depart from the proper meaning in order
to give their discourse greater fulness, and they do this for
no criminal purpose. Now, it is plain, from what precedes
and what follows the passage quoted, that Christ is speak-
ing of His equality with the Father as regards omnipotence;
for we read: "Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, be-
cause He had done these things on the Sabbath-day. . .
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He
not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was
His Father, making Himself equal with God. Then answered
Jesus and said unto them. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The
Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the
Father do." It is manifest, then, that Bernard understands
this word of Christ in another sense.

In my third rejoinder, relating to what he has called my
vulgar, ridiculous, and miserable argument, I said that even

16. A MISMOBABLE FOUBTH OF JCLY. (AFTEBNOON.) 147

without the Pope the Church has a head. He said in reply
that my argument was not worthy of being advanced in so
serious a matter before such great men. I answer : Let it be
vulgar and ridiculous, if it only cannot be defeated ; for I do
not see yet that it has been refuted. For I do not compre-
hend, if the Church is not without a head for three or four
months when a Pope has died, provided only that there are
other bishops still living, why it cannot have a head even
when there is no Pope at all. Por his allegation that the
cardinals have the right to elect a new Pope, etc., only
strengthens my argument, because it follows from this allega-
tion that at a time like that of Jerome, when there were no
cardinals, there cannot have been a Pope.

In my fourth rejoinder, regarding the testimony of
Cyprian, I said that he is speaking of any bishop. Eck re-
plied that the text shows clearly that he spoke of the Eoman
Pope Cornelius in opposition to the Novatians. I answer :
I do not care whether he does; I have not this letter in my
memory. But this I know that St. Cyprian in many letters
is occupied only with showing that the head or bishop of
each church is appointed by the vote of the people, aided by
the advice of the neighboring bishops. Accordingly, if what
the Doctor alleges regarding Cornelius in opposition to the
iSTovatians is correct, I say, it is certain that he spoke of the
head of the church at Eome, not of the Church universal.
In like manner he refuted my argument that Cyprian always
addresses Cornelius as his brother, never as his lord, as the
bishops are doing nowadays, using a word that expresses
a relation without its proper correlate, that is, they call
a person lord who has no servants. He answered that even
Peter had treated the apostles as brethren, and still was the
head and the highest of the apostles, as Dionysius relates.
I reply: If our excellent Doctor can prove that Peter ap-
pointed a single one of the apostles, or a single one of the
seventy disciples, or that he sent one of them on any mission,
I grant all he claims and declare myself defeated. But if
I shall prove that not even all the apostles could commission
one single apostle, I pray that he will concede that Peter had

148 16- A MEMOEABLE FOUETH OF JULY. ( AFTEBNOON. )

no power over the rest of tlie apostles. It follows, then, that
much less has the bishop who is the successor of Peter power
over the bishops who are the successors of the apostles. Now,
the clear text in Acts 1, 23 ff. states, that the Apostle Mat-
thias could not be appointed by the entire council of the
apostles and the disciples, but his commission had to come
from heaven, even as all the others were chosen and ordained
by Christ. Likewise, in chap. 13, 2, Paul and Barnabas were
accepted for their work when the Holy Ghost had separated
them. It is therefore a manifest error that Peter had power
over the apostles. I grant indeed that the Apostle Peter was
the first among the apostles, and that in point of honor the
preference is to be given to him, but not in point of authority.
They were all chosen in like manner, and were all given equal
authority. In the same manner I hold that the Roman Pope
is to be preferred before the rest as regards honor, however,
not to the detriment of the equal power of the rest, and not
as Pelagius says in his altogether useless decretal: "Where
the greater renown is, there is the greater authority, and the
rest necessarily have but one choice, namely, to obey."

My fifth rejoinder, in which I cited Cyprian and the
Council of ISTicea on the election of a bishop, our excellent
Doctor has spurned with great words, and has said that this
neither helps nor hinders our business. But that does not
refute my argument. Accordingly, the decree of Nicea is
still in force, or if it is not, and that decree was passed in
opposition to the divine law, that council cannot have been
an ecumenical one, but it must have been a miserable -devil's
conclave. Likewise, it was a mere bluff when he stated that
I should not have cited Augustine, and when he interpreted
with a beautiful gloss Cyprian, whom Augustine has quoted,
and said that Cyprian is only rebuking the ambition and
pride of those who force their way into an office before they
are called as Aaron was called. !Now the text states clearly
that no bishop who is already installed in office is to usurp
authority over the other bishops. Therefore my argument
still stands.

As regards my sixth rejoinder, the excellent Doctor vio-

16. A MEMOEABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (AFTERNOON;) 149

lently upbraids me, because, in citing tbe second testimony
of Cyprian, I had omitted tbe words "the principal Church" ;
besides, he ridicules my grammatical knowledge because
I said that sacerdotal unity is derived from the chair of
Peter. Accordingly, this new logician or philosopher explains
this "origin" to mean the transfer of the office, the origin of
subordinate positions and influence; "otherwise," says he
to me, "he will not produce one priest, not even at Jeru-
salem." I answer: No matter whether I omitted the words
"the principal Church" or not; for the Roman Church can-
not be called the principal Church in reference to the Eastern
Church, as I have sufficiently shown. And as to his curious
idea of the "origin of influence," I shall manage to despise
that as easily as he invented it; and I do not find it difficult
to produce one priest from Jerusalem, viz., Jesus Christ, who
began the. Church, and from whom it sprang and came forth
according to the prophecy in Is. 2, 3 : "Out of Zion shall go
forth the Law, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem."
Eck added the testimony of Jerome, who has declared that
the Eastern Church is heretical and has torn into shreds the
undivided garment of the Lord. I do not see what his object
is in adducing this testimony. For he cannot claim that the
entire Eastern Church has always been heretical. Nor can he
deny that there have been heretics in the Latin Church, and
yet it remained a Church. Hence he has made no point at
all by bidding me be silent, and by ridiculing my argument
regarding the Greek Church, saying that when these people
fell away from the Roman Church, they forsook faith in
Christ at the same time. I rather ask Doctor Eck in that
vaunted Eckian modesty of his to spare so many thousands
of saints in the Greek Church, which has existed hitherto,
and, without doubt, will continue to exist. For Christ re-
ceived for His possession and inheritance, not the center of
the Roman country, but the ends of the earth, Ps. 2, 8.

My answer to the seventh point, concerning the highest
priest of whom Jerome speaks, he has called evasive, and
to confirm his former claim, he raised the question why
St. Jerome has called Damasus the successor of the fisher-

150 16- A MEMOEABLE FOURTH OF JXJLT. ( AFTEENOON. )

man, and desired to be associated with the chair of Peter,
and why, citing the divine word in Matt. 16, 18, he said:
"I know that the Church is built upon this Eock," which can-
not be said, he claimed, of other churches. Then he bewailed
the fall of the church at Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria,
and finally, of the church in Bohemia, and said that accord-
ing to the testimony of Jerome the authority of the fathers
had been preserved inviolate only with the Romans. In reply
I request that the excellent Doctor cite the sayings of the
fathers conscientiously, lest we appear sophists instead of
theologians. For in the passage cited, Jerome calls every
bishop the highest priest because he has been elevated from
among the other priests. Hence the passage does not prop-
erly refer to the Roman Pope. Again, the passage Matt.
16, 18 cannot be appropriated only by the Roman Church, as
the words of Christ clearly show; for He says "My Church."
No matter, then, what Church it is, it is built upon the Rock,
and that applies not to the Roman Church only. Or if this
word of Christ is not to be applied to other churches, the
Roman Church stands alone, and in ■f;hat case cannot be the
first. Hence the unity of the Church does not rest on the
unity of the Roman supremacy, but on a much better foun-
dation, as the apostle states in Eph. 4, 5, namely, on one faith,
one Baptism, one Lord, — a truth which Cyprian in his let-
ters has often expressed. Nor has the authority of the fathers
been kept inviolate only among the Romans, except perhaps
at the time when Jerome wrote. Yea, history has recorded
the fact that Pope Liberius made concessions to the Arians,
and Jerome, i)i his Famous Men, relates that Achatius, an
Arian bishop at Caesarea and a pupil of the Arian Eusebius,
by order of the Emperor Constantine appointed Eelix Pope
of Rome.

Refuting, in the eighth place, the testimony of Jerome in
his letter to Evagrius, which I had adduced, he said that he
had known that all bishops had the same dignity and office,
and that they are still equal, but he claimed that the papacy
is an order superior to the episcopate. But he did not refute
my argument, because Jerome derives the superiority or in-

16. A MEMORABLE FOURTH OP JULY. (AFTERNOON.) 151

feriority of bishops, not from divine right, but from custom
and the influence of wealth. Therefore, I stick to Jerome.

My ninth point related to the 93d distinction of the canon
Legimus. He said in reply that he did not believe there was
such a confusion in the early Church that a bishop was not
distinguished from a priest. I reply: What is that to me?
Let him wrangle with Jerome and the canons. But he cited
Dionysius, who has numbered the episcopate with the holy
orders. I wonder now why he did not prove from the same
author the monarchy of the Roman Church, since that has
such an influence on the order of the kingdom of Christ that
without it the Church on earth would lose its similarity to
the Church triumphant. A person who professes to write
a constitution for the monarchy should have disposed of this
matter, at least in its essential parts; but Dionysius defines
nothing beyond the office of a bishop.

In my tenth rejoinder I referred to the 99th distinction
of the canon Primue, and said that it had been forbidden to
call the Roman Pope the universal bishop. He said in reply
that the prohibition did not say that the Roman Pope was
not the first and highest bishop, but only that a bishop, es-
pecially of the Roman Church, could not be the ordinary
bishop of each and every congregation. I answer : Could
any one conceive such a silly thought that one individual
could preside over each and every church, so that it was
necessary to forbid such great stupidity? Then he dropped,
his refutation and offered a better interpretation, viz., that
the Roman Pope is not the universal bishop, but the bishop
of 'the Church universal. If I did not wish to spare him,
I should overthrow also this answer of his. But I shall leave
the decision to the judges and the auditors.

Finally, in reference to the passage Luke 22, 26, where
Christ says : "Ye shall not be so," he said that this passage
rebukes ambition, but not the primacy. I reply: That is
begging the question. He talks as if he had already proved
that there must be a primacy. Besides, it is clear that the
text does not only forbid ambition, but wanting to be above
the rest.

152 16. A MEMOBABLE FOUETH OF JUIY. (AFTEBNOON. )

Ech : In reply to the rebuttal of the reverend father I say,
first, that the persons who said that they were of Peter were
not reproved by Paul for imagining that there was to be one
of the apostles who was to occupy the first place, but because
they regarded a peculiarity in a person. This is clearly in-
dicated by the words "divisions" and "schism" (1 Cor. 1,
13. 10). And although Luther prefers Paul to Jerome, we
shall have to believe, if we wish to be God-fearing men, that
Jerome has correctly understood the meaning of Paul. For
the meaning of the passage is not in doubt, viz., that a head
was appointed for the Church in order to remove the occasion
for schisms. That is suificient for any one who knows gram-
mar. Of this study the reverend father has said in a dis-
putation, that it is of greater value than other parts of
philosophy and useful to the theologian.

Secondly. ISTone but Arians have denied that Christ in
John 5, 19 claims coequality with the Pather, nor does Ber-
nard cite the passage in any other sense. But we decline the
opinion of the reverend father that the holy fathers cited the
Scriptures in order to expand their discourses, for of such
vainglory we should not suspect them.

In reference to the third point, that the Church is with-
out a head when the Pope dies, I say that it has never been
denied that Christ is the Head of the Church. Also the
gloss to Cant. 5, 11 : "His head is as the most fine gold,"
states this. It says: "The Head, that is, Christ." But the
Pope is His vicegerent. In the consistory a bishop and his
substitute are regarded as one person. Hence it is not per-
mitted to take an appeal from the substitute to the bishop.
Regarding the cardinals, however, I said that now, after the
Church has received its proper order, the choice of a Pope
has been delegated to the cardinals by an order of Pope
Nicholas. But I believe that there were cardinals at the
time of Jerome, or Jerome could not have been a cardinal
priest.

Here Luther interjected: Jerome never was a cardinal.

In the fourth place, regarding Cyprian. It is impossible,
to be sure, that he should have restricted the words of the

16. A MEMORABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (AFTERNOON.) 153

lioly martyrs so as to make them apply only to the narrow
confines of the district of Eome, because the JSTovatian bishops
came to Eome from Numidia, a country of which Ptolemy
and Strabo tell us that it lies on the other side of the Atlas
Mountains. (Luther interjected: On this side.) But as to
Cyprian's calling Cornelius "brother," I hold that that was
the opinion of the party who collected Cyprian's writings,
not of Cyprian himself. For, reading the epistles of the holy
bishops, we find that it was far more common in those days
to accord laudable and distinguished titles to persons than
is done nowadays to the Roman Pope. We know this from
Ambrose, Augustine, Hilary, and other fathers. For they
address each other as "Most blessed," "Most holy," "Most
beloved of God," etc. In reference to what I added, he claims
that I am trying to digress, and drag in matters that are not
to the point. With your leave I should like to say that it is
a shame to a teacher to instruct others and not himself. He
asks me to prove that Peter appointed a single apostle; but
that is beside our object. For we do not inquire who it was
that appointed this or that person, but who received from the
Lord Jesus the supremacy over the rast. What he said next
I utterly decline to admit, because he draws this conclusion:
Peter could not appoint an apostle, therefore the successor of
Peter cannot appoint a successor to an apostle, or exercise
authority over him. His premise is true, out his conclusion
is false, because the Pope now has that power and does ordain
bishops. But the proper solution for this difficulty will
probably be that the office of an apostle, being fundamental
to the Church, embraces more than being a bishop. For that
reason Leo X, the successor of the Apostle Peter, is not an
apostle. It is, however, not sufficient to concede, as he does,
that Peter was the first in the enimieration of the apostles
and in point of honor, but not as regards his authority: in
the first place, because the evangelists do not enumerate the
apostles in like order, as can be seen from Chrysostom's gloss
to Matt. 10. Secondly, his distinction between priority of
honor and of authority contradicts directly the holy martyr
Cyprian, who, in his treatise on the Simplicity of Prelates

154 16. A MEMOKABLE FOURTH OF JtJXY. ( AFTEENOON. )

{De TJnitate Ecclesiae) against Novatian, speaks of the wiles
of the devil, and inveighs against those who, pretending to
he ministers of righteousness, call the night day, perdition
salvation, despair hope, and perfidy faith. Further on he
says: "Although after His resurrection He gave equal
authority to all the apostles and said: 'As My Father hath
sent Me,' etc., nevertheless, in order to make unity plain to
them. He so ordered the origin of this unity by His power
that it had to take its beginning from one. The other dis-
ciples were absolutely all that Peter was, endowed with an
equal share of honor as well as of authority," — mark this
well ! — "but the beginning was made from one, in order to
show that the Church is one." Further on he says: "Who-
ever does not preserve this unity does not keep the Law of
God, nor faith in the Father and Son, nor does he obtain
life and salvation." These are the remarkable words of
Cyprian, who makes no distinction among the apostles as
regards priority of honor and of authority.

In regard to the fifth point, concerning^ the election of
a bishop, I repeat what I said before, that we are not dis-
cussing the method of electing a bishop, but rather the quality
and importance of the person elected. The Council of ]Sricea
is a council not to be despised, but as regards methods of
acting and customs, the condition of the times, of persons
and localities, may change these, as can be seen from many
canons.

In the sixth place, our highly honored Doctor attacks my
logic, and says that I have invented a distinction between two
kinds of origin. We have heard before that on this point
Cyprian sides with Eck, who is not so gifted as to be able
to invent new things, but merely interprets the old sayings
of the saints, as far as he is able. But his admission that
Christ is the Priest of all does not come up, first, to the
meaning of Cyprian, next, to that of Jerome; for these
fathers mean to say that Peter was appointed the first of the
apostles, and that the authority of the other priests is derived
from him; not, indeed, in such a way that he confers on

16. A MEMORABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (AFTERNOON.) 155

them inwardly what only Christ, the Head, can bestow, but
by communicating to them ecclesiastical authority.

In the seventh place, he misses in my arguments the
Eckian modesty, because I have denounced the Greeks and
Orientals as reprobates. I reply that for a long time the
Greeks have not only been schismatics, but extreme heretics,
as the great multitude of their errors and their stubborn
claims enumerated in the Clementine chapter De Summa
Trinitate, shows, such as their teaching concerning the Holy
Ghost, confession, the spuriousness of three evangelists, and
inniimerable other things. Still they have frequently ren-
dered to the Roman Church a sort of feigned obedience, for
instance, at the Florentine council in the days of Euge-
nius IV. If those are correct who think that few of us will
be saved, how much less, if any, will there be saved in
Turkey ? — except that there may be a few monks with their ,
followers who continue their obedience to Rome.

In the eighth place, the reverend father asks me to cite
my authoritieg conscientiously. He need not worry. I wish
I could cite them also from full knowledge. But no one can
doubt that Jerome recognized Damasus as Pope. ISTor does
anybody doubt that the Church universal is built upon the
Rock. However, that this Rock is Peter and his successors
I shall prove anon.

He casts some reflection on the remark of Jerome: "The
primeval authority is kept inviolate only among you," in-
sinuating that even the Roman Popes have not been alto-
gether without blemish. If he refers to the time of Jerome,
the Popes preceding him were Liberius and Anastasius.
I mention this because the minds of believers are rightly
filled with admiration by observing that no Roman Pope,
no matter how wicked and heretical he was, has ever, as. far
as I know, decreed or ordained anything oiiicially that was
contrary to the commandments of the Christian faith. For
their persons, indeed, they have often erred, but when they
undertook to render erroneous decisions, they were overtaken
by the judgment of God, as happened to the Arian Leo,

156 16. A MEMORABLE FOURTH OP JULY. (AFTERNOON.)

wkom Hilarion opposed, and to Anastasius (Can. Anastasius,
loth dist.).

In tlie nintli place, my remark about the 93d distinction
of the canon Legimus the reverend father may not have
understood. It never entered my mind to say that the papacy
is an order above that of the episcopate; it is a dignity.
When he says that I am at war with Jerome and the canons,
I claim that I have declared my meaning. On this point
I give the preference to the testimony of Dionysius, because
he is the older. But since the reverend father indulges in
oratorical reflections on Dionysius, asking why he did not
describe the monarch of the Church, and did not get beyond
the episcopate in his description, I can easily answer him.
Dionysius studies the mysteries of the Church. Now, I de-
nied that the papacy is an order; therefore the episcopate in
the unanimous opinion of all occupies the first place.

In the tenth place, he thinks nobody could be so silly as
to believe that any person could be the regular bishop of
each and every church. I have only to express my regret
that there is an infinite multitude of such fools and of people
who are striving after something peculiar. Let the reverend
father read Alvarus on The Wail of the Churchy John de
Turre Cremata in his Summa Ecclesiae, William Occam in
his Bialogus, and he will meet with people who occasionally
entertained this folly. As regards his attempt to overthrow
my argument that the Pope were better called the bishop of
the Church imiversal than the universal bishop, I have this
to say, that I have repeated what St. Bernard has said, and
what the Popes have made their practise. Bernard says in
col. T of his second book De Oonsideratione ad Eugenium:
"It is a mark of the peculiar episcopate of Peter," etc., and
further on: "While each of the others has his church, to
you is committed the one Church, the largest ship, spread
throughout the world, and grown into the Church universal
out of all the others."

In the tenth rejoinder he also Says that it is not a suf-
ficient explanation of Luke 22, 24 ff. what I have invented
as its meaning. But I am not without authorities to sup-

17. A MEMORABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (EVENING.) 157

port me. I quote Eichard Armacanus in chap. 3, book 7,
De Quaestionibus Armeniorum, who understand this passage
as I have done, as St. Leo testifies. That this is the true
meaning is shown by v. 26 : "He that is greatest among
you," etc. Christ, then, presupposed that some one would
be the greatest. But He did not indicate at that time who
would be the greatest, but later, when He spoke to Peter of
the devil having desired him and of His prayer for him,
and when He told him to strengthen his brethren after he
himself should be converted. It was then that He explained
what it means to be the greatest.l''^)

With this peroration of Eck the session was adjourned.
We have reproduced the entire debate of this day, in order to
give the reader as direct a view of the event as it is possible
after the lapse of so many years. We shall have to restrict
ourselves to a summary of the remainder of the discussion.
The outstanding features of the debate so far have been the
application of the Scriptural principle on the part of Luther,
and the jealous care with which papists surround the primacy
of their Pope, as if it were the article with which the Church
either stands or falls. The futility of Eck's arguments as
shown during this debate in behalf of the most cherished
tenet of his Church is characteristic of all subsequent Catho-
lic argument on this subject.

17. A Memorable Fourth of July.

(Evening.)

At the opening of the debate, Luther had expressed his
pained surprise at observing the absence of certain persons
whom he felt he might expect to see among his auditors.
Luther's remarks had been so pointed — he had spoken of
"inquisitors of heretical depravity" — ■ that his audience could
hardly fail to understand that he was referring to John
Tetzel; for this title of "inquisitor" Tetzel had assumed

176) XV, 904 — 929 ; Loescher, I. c, III, 330—350.

158 !"• A MEMOKABLE FOanTH OF JULY. (EVEI^ING.)

after the publication of the JSTinety-five Theses. With in-
quisitorial anger he had fulminated against Luther from the
university at Frankfurt on the Oder, where he had obtained
the degree of Doctor of Divinity.

Another pointed reference to Tetzel occurred at the end .
of the debate, twelve days later. In his closing address
Dr. John Lange, the ex-Rector of the university, remarked
that the debate might have had still greater weight if sick-
ness had not prevented the preacher of the indulgences which
had been discussed in the debate from entering the lists with
his former courage.l''')

But there is another reason that leads us to speak of
Tetzel at this time. Froeschel, one of the chroniclers of the
Leipzig Debate, relates the following incidents: ."This same
monk Tetzel died during the debate while the [Dominican]
monks [with whom Tetzel had found a sheltering domi-
cile] were singing their Salve. At the [Paulinian convent-]
church they [had begun the vesper liturgy and] were singing :
'Salve, Eegina misericordiae' ('Hail, Queen of Mercy'), and
the sacristan was beginning to ring the first bell; when he
rang the second time, Tetzel was in his last agony ; when the
monks began to sing: 'Sub tuum praesidium confugimus,
sancta Dei genetrix' ('Under thy shelter we take refuge,
O holy mother of God'), and while the bells were ringing
for the third time, Tetzel breathed his last. Then the monks
hurried into their convent as though the hangman were after
them with his whip. This happened exactly at six o'clock,
and on the day when the blessed Dr. Martin .Luther began
his disputation against the Pope. I have seen this my-
self." 178)

This account has impressed even such exact scholars as
Hausrath 1^9) and Buchwaldji^") both of whom have given
July 4 as the day of Tetzel's death. If the account is true,
Luther must have been returning to his lodging and passed

177) Loescher, I. c, III, 584.

178) Hofmann, Johann Texel, p. 146. Hausrath, I. u., I, 275 f

179) !. c, I, 299. (Published 1905.)

180) Doktor Martin Luther, p. 149. (Published In 2. edit. 1913.)

17. A MEMOEAliLE FOURTH OF JULY. (EVENING.) 159

not far from Tetzel's hiding-place when the unfortunate
man went to face his Maker and Judge. Froeschel, no doubt,
was struck by this remarkable coincidence; for he fairly
puts his finger on it when he writes: "Gleich um 6 Uhr,
und an dem Tage, da Dr. Martinus Luther seliger an-
gefangen hatte, wider den Papst zu disputieren." But re-
cent research 1^1) has led Koestlinl^S) and Grisarl83) to reject
July 4 as the date of Tetzel's death, and to substitute
August 11. However, all historians are agreed that 1?etzel
was ill at Leipzig during Luther's debate, and that he died
at that city.

Let us interrupt our review of the Leipzig Debate for
a moment and learn a few facts about Tetzel. When Mil-
titz came from Rome to Saxony to pacify Luther, he sum-
moned Tetzel to meet him at Altenburg, which at that
time was the Elector's residence. This summons Tetzel
answered by the following letter, dated at Leipzig, Decem-
ber 31, 1518 : —

While your Honor could command me, you have urged me to
come to Altenburg, where I am to hear something peculiar from
you. I would not shun the labor of the journey and accommodate
your Honor, if I could leave Leipzig without danger to my life.
For Martin Luther, Augustinian, has so stirred up and aroused
the mighty ones not only in all Germany, but also in the king-
doms of Bohemia, Hungary, and Polonia, that I am safe nowhere.
The said Luther was cited to Augsburg and in a conference, which
took place there, he has blamed this whole trouble in which he
is involved on me, and by publishing false statements has slan-
dered and defamed me as a heretic, alleging that I have preached
blasphemy and have deceived my most reverend fathers in God,
the Archbishop of Mayence and Magdeburg and the Cardinal of
the Holy See, by concealing from them my plans by I do not
know what cunning. I have long ago forwarded my sermon to
his Papal Holiness for inspection. As regards th6 blasphemy
which, he alleges, I have uttered against the Holy Virgin, I have by
word of mouth and in writing defended myself against that charge

181) By Clemen, in Studien u. Kritiken, 1901, 127, and by Paulus,
in KathoUk, 1901, I, 560.

182) Martin Luther, I, 225. (Publislied in 5. edit, by Kawerau in
1903.)

183) Luther, I, 347. (Published 1916 — 17.) The Cath. Encycl., in
the article on Tetzel, does not commit itself to any date.

160 17. A MEMOEABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (EVENING.)

last year, as your Honor can see from the copies whicli I trans-
mit herewith. Regardless of my defense, however, the said Martin
shamelessly charges me again with having preached heresy and
blasphemy, in order that he may excite implacable hatred against
me in the minds of all men, and render me odious to them. I have
sometimes seen them glower at me when I happened to be in the
pulpit. Moreover, I have been warned by many brave and reliable
persons to be on my guard unceasingly. For many of Martin's
party have sworn to kill me. Hence, although I should like to
see your Honor rather than an angel, I cannot come without
putting my life in jeopardy. Your honor will, therefore, excuse
me for God's sake and on account of my great fear. I have
hitherto loved the holy Papal See at all times, and still love it
as long as I live. I shall defend and protect its liberty and privi-
leges, though, while Martin goes on with his object, I have these
many years and especially now suffered much peril of body, fame,
and fortune from the common people, from the clergy, and from
others. I am assailed with infinite sorrows and injuries because
of the Papal See. But I shall let this pass. Until the end of
my life I shall shun no labor in the defense of the Papal See
against its adversaries. Let your honor command me what to do,
and I shall obey your order if I can do so without endangering
my life.184)

This letter reveals nothing but the craven heart of Tetzel ;
for what he relates about a Lutheran conspiracy against him
is the pure hallucination of a coward: his evil conscience
made him see spooks. But this letter incidentally gives us
an indication to what extent the leaven of Luther's Theses
had been working among the people; for the ill will of the
people had been expressed to Tetzel frequently enough.

Miltitz, for the time being, accepted the excuse of Tetzel;
but after he had reached the understanding with Luther that
the latter would cease his polemics if his adversaries would
do the same, Miltitz went to Leipzig. Here he summoned
Tetzel to appear before him in the presence of the Provincial
of the Dominican order, Hermann Eab, — the same gentle-
man of whom we heard in previous chapters, — and fearfully
upbraided Tetzel for his immoral conduct and for mal-
feasance in office. Tetzel was charged with adultery, gam-
bling with the indulgence funds, and extreme wastefulness.

184) XV, 714 ff.

17. A ilEMORABLE FOURTH OF JULY. (EVENl.NG.) 161

An old Naumburg chronicle relates that after his death two
thousand florins were found which he had purloined from
the revenues of his traffic, and that he had hoarded wealth
to provide for his two illegitimate children. Miltitz charged
him with being the author of "the tragedy" in Germany, and
threatened to report him to the Pope, who would probably
excommunicate him, and decide what else should be done
to him.

Now this man, so brazen and bold in former times, .lost
all courage ; he wanted to quit the country, but did not know
whither to turn. The shock which he had received was so
great that he fell into hysteria and pined away in melancholy
in the convent of the Dominicans at Leipzig.

Luther had heard of the merciless chastisement which
Miltitz had administered to Tetzel. On February 20 he
wrote to Staupitz : —

Miltitz lias summoned Tetzel and reprimanded him. He con-
victed him of appropriating ninety gulden for his monthly salary,
and of keeping a mounted servant and a carriage at the expense
of the treasury. This Tetzel has now disappeared, and nobody
knows whither he is gone, unless he is with his [Dominican]
fathers.lSS)

To Spalatin, however, Luther wrote February 12 : —

I regret that Tetzel has been reduced to such misery, that his
doings have been brought to light, and that his safety is in
danger. If it could be done, I would much rather that his honor
were preserved, after he has somewhat mended his conduct.
I gain nothing by his shame, just as I lost nothing by his being
honored. I cannot cease wondering that he was so bold as to
squeeze so much money out of people that are quite poor — money
enough to keep a bishop, yea, an apostle in state.186)

When the news spread in Leipzig that Luther and Carl-
stadt v.-ere coming to hold a public disputation there, and
that indulgences would be one of the 'subjects to be discussed,
Tetzel grew very angry. "The devil take him!" (Luther)
he cried.18") On the day of the arrival of the Wittenbergers
he was told by his friends — for he did not venture to show

185) XV, 2445 f. 186) XV, 2391.

187) Aurifaber, Tageb. I, 162 ; Loesclier, I. c. III, 969.

DAUj LEIPZIG DEBATE. 11

162 17. A MEMORABLE FOUKTH OF JULY. (EVENING.)

himself in public — that a small army had arrived from. Wit-
tenberg, with Duke Barnim at their head, and all bearing
weapons. His partly unbalanced mind at once interpreted
this as a plot on his life, and he spent his days in paroxysms
of fear. One day he was fearfully startled by an event
which he interpreted as an ill omen: the monk Baumgaert-
ner, whom we saw rudely interruQting a conversation of
Proeschel and Dr. Metzler at the home of the printer Herbi-
polis, had been seized with apoplexy and died soon after. He
had quarreled with a nobleman from Wittenberg at the inn
of "The Eosary" on Nicolaistrasse, and had talked himself
into such blind fury that he collapsed in the midst of his
argument.

How little Tetzel had to fear from Luther was shown
when Luther, who must have heard of his deplorable con-
dition, wrote him a letter of consolation. The letter is not
extant, but Luther remembered this incident twenty-sis years
later and wrote in the Preface of the first collection of his
Latin writings : —

Tetzel had been thundered at and crushed with threatening
words about the Pope's vengeance, so that he pined away and
was finally carried off by the grief of his heart. When I learned
this, I wrote him a, friendly letter before he died, and comforted
him. I told him to be of good cheer and not to tremble when he
thought of me. But perhaps he succumbed to his conscience and
the anger of God.188)

Luther assured Tetzel that the controversy concerning in-
dulgences had not been started on his account. "This child,"
he said, "has a different father." Therefore Tetzel might
cease troubling his mind with useless self-accusations, as if
he were solely responsible for the disturbance that had come
upon the Church, and as if all the ignominy and suffering
to which he must now submit were only the due recompense
for his great wrongs. Could a friend have cheered a person
in despondency with greater kindness or more effectually ? 189)

It is likely that this generous act of Luther took place
during his sojourn at Leipzig in the days of the debate. For

188) XIV, 446.

189) Luthers Brief e, by De Wette and Seldemann, 6, 18.

17. A MEJtOEABLE FOUBTH Or JULY. (EVENING.) 163

Luther says that he wrote him "before Tetzel died." He
would hear of the poor monl<;'s sad condition, and that he
would receive no visitors, — it is possible, too, that the Do-
minicans, Luther's fiercest enemies, would not admit him to
Tetzel's cell, — and so he chose the medium of correspondence
to assure him that he bore him no grudge.

The accidental sojourn of Luther and Tetzel in the same
city at this particular time is apt to invite reverent reflec-
tions. How grossly had the huckster of papal indulgences
vilified Luther! . At Berlin he had raved and said that in
three weeks he would see Lilther burning on the pyre, and
would send him to hell with a fool's cap.!"") !Now he was
himself trembling in daily anticipation of the stake ! ISTot
quite two years had passed since he had traversed Germany
like a demigod, decked with all the paraphernalia of eccle-
siastical greatness, surrounded with the pomp and glory of
the papacy; the people had kissed his hand and thought
themselves happy if they could but touch the hem of his
garment. Now he was dying in concealment, virtually in
prison, dreading the wrath of the master whom he had so
faithfully served. Like a dog he had barked for his master
with all his might; like a dog his master kicked him into
the ditch when he had become useless. What an ending of
a brilliant career ! But that career was conceived in iniquity
and begotten in greed, and it ended properly thus.

Returning to Lotther's house in the evening after the
first day of debating, if Luther glanced in the direction of
the Dominican cloister and remembered the life that was
there ebbing out into the sea of eternity, what must his
thoughts have been! God, Thou art righteous and just;
but unto us belongs confusion of faces!

190) XXII, 1718.

164 18. EEMAINDER OF THE DEBATE OX THE PEIMACY.

18. The Remainder of the Debate on the
Primacy.

The debate on the primacy of the Pope was continued
till Friday afternoon. Tuesday, July 5, Luther opened the
morning session by insisting that in 1 Cor. 3 the undue pre-
ferment of Peter is indeed declared unwarranted. Likewise
in Gal. 2, 6 Paul speaks against undue authority that is ac-
corded men. Everybody, he said, knows the origin of the
rank of cardinals; such great titles the bishops had first
given to each other, but not to the Roman bishop alone.
Eck's assertion- that the Greeks are arch-heretics he declared
extreme, and he showed resentment at Eck's frequent ref-
erence to the Bohemians, which he considered uncalled for.
' Then he turned to the passage on which the whole debate
turned, Matt. 16, 18, and showed that the Eock in this pas-
sage is the faith which Peter professed, and which is com-
mon to the entire Church. In this connection he cited
Eph. 4, 5, and declared that the assertion of Richard Arma-
candus is vain over and against these clear words, for if
there is "one faith," none of the apostles could be above
the other.

In his reply Ech asserted that. Gal. 2, 6 would be perti-
nently cited by Luther if the latter were defending Eck's
position. As to Richard Armacandus, this writer had ever
appealed to the authority of St. Leo. Matt. 16, he claimed,
is directed against quarrelsomeness,^ and does not forbid the
erection of a primacy. Speaking on the 18th verse in this
chapter, he began to extol Peter, who had been made the
monarch of the Church on that occasion, and cited the
Glossa ordinaria (a much-used commentary in the medieval
Church), Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Leo
the Great, all of whom had interpreted the term "petra''
(rock) in this text as identical with Peter. Next, he re-
ferred to the decrees of the Popes Anicetus, Marcellus,
Julius, and Pelagius, which declared the same view. He
added that the opposite teaching had been condemned as an
error in the case of the Lyonese, Wyclif, Marsilius, and Hus.

18. REMAINDER OE THE DEBATE OX THE PRIMACY. 165

With a sneer he asked Luther to bear with him if he showed
such resentment against the Bohemians, those enemies of
the Church.

Luther answered that he well understood Eck's intention :
he wanted to make him appear the friend and patron of the
Bohemians. He declared that he had no respect for schis-
matics, even in a righteous cause. Nor had he been speaking
of the Bohemians, but of the Greeks, among whom there
were many saints who had never acknowledged the Pope.
Moreover, there had been a Christian congregation at Rome
twenty years before Peter arrived in that city. The decre^jals
which Eck had cited he pronounced spurious, and said that
they were never written by the old martyrs and teachers to
whom they were ascribed. Sometimes a precedent in which
a Roman bishop was involved had been made into a law, as
when Epiphanius deposed the archbishop of Constantinople.
Sayings of the fathers are no divine law; Augustine often
speaks of faith as the rock that is intended in Matt. 16. But
even if all the fathers were to declare Peter the rock, they
could not overthrow such passages as 1 Cor. 3, 11 and 1 Pet.
2, 4. Peter cannot be the rock, because he fell, etc. As
a curiosity, showing that the decretals of Anacletus are
spurious, he cited the fact that in this document the asser-
tion is made that the meaning of the word Cephas is "head."
In conclusion, Luther declared once more that he was not
the patron of the Bohemians; Eck might have his leave to
write against them.

This concluded the morning session.

Tn the afternoon Luther continued to speak of the con-
demned teachings of Wyclif and Hus, and said that there
were among these teachings some that had a right Christian
ring; for instance, that there is a Church universal, that it
is not necessary for salvation to believe that the primacy of
the Pope exists by divine right. Many of the old fathers
had believed thus and had gone to heaven.

At this statement of Luther Duke George was observed
to lean forward, put his arm akimbo, and exclaim excitedly,
"The pest take the man!"

166 IS. REMAISDEE OF THE DEBATE ON THE PKIMACY.

Luther continued: There is but one thing that we have
to believe, namely, what Scripture teaches. He warned Eck
not to join the crowd of flatterers who extol the Pope.
Gregory the Great, he said, had declined such flattery. As
tp recent decrees of the Popes, he, held that these could not
decide anything in this matter.

Ech opened his rejoinder by declaring that Luther de-
fended heretics.

Luther promptly interrupted him, saying: "I protest pub-
licly before you all that the excellent Doctor, in what he
says, is shamefully lying about me."

Ech, however, continued and claimed that he had con-
clusively proved from Matt. 16, 18 the divine right of the
primacy, and that he had cited the fathers only for the pur-
pose of showing that- they had so understood the passage.
In his "Eetractations'' Augustine regards Peter as the rock.
By opposing all the fathers, Luther had become a Bohemian.
He referred to the sermon which Luther had preached during
the preceding week, and declared Luther's explanation of
that text worthless. Luther, speaking of the handing over
of the keys to Peter, had called attention to the fact that
Christ had spoken in the future tense, as of something which
He was going to do, but was not doing right then and there.
As to the decretals which he had cited, Eck declared that
they were valid because they had been embodied in the
records of councils. He charged Luther with speaking con-
temptuously about the Council of Constanz.

Luther protested : "It is not true that I have spoken
against the Council of Constanz."

The Bohemians, however, Ech continued, would proclaim
Luther their champion.

Luther again protested: "That is a most shameful lie!"

Ech proceeded: A doctrine which men have been at lili-
erty to teach becomes heretical by a decision of the Pope
and a council. He turned to the jurists and appealed to
them not to admit the sole authority of the Scriptures, for
then their Jus Canonicum, their civil code, would be put
out of commission. As to Gregory the Great, he declared

18. BEMAINDER OF THE DEBATE ON THE PRIMACY. 167

that it was only politeness in this Pope that he would not
make use of his right, but that there were passages in his
writings in which he ascribed the plenitude of power only
to the Pope.

Thus ended the debate of the second day.

On Wednesday morning, July 6, Luther, first, repelled
the insinuation of Eck that he was a heretic, and that he
was offending against the rules for conducting the debate.
Xext, he insisted that the Eastern Church must necessarily
be heretical if the primacy of the Pope is of divine right.
Then he turned to Matt. 16, 18, and declared that Augustine
finally had declined, in his "Retractations," to take Peter
for the rock. Other fathers had declared the same. Peter
had acted the hypocrite even after his conversion; therefore
he could not be the Rock. He still maintained his assertion
that the decretals of the first Popes are spurious, because
they translate Cephas by "rock." The articles of Hus that
were condemned by the Council of Constanz, such as, that
there is only one Church, the Church of the elect, that the
two natures in Christ are one Christ, that all that a person
does is either good or evil, were correct. This shows, he
said, that a council can err, but the Scriptures never.
Gregory's remark regarding the Pope's plenitude of power
Luther understood as applying only to the Western Church.
Finally, he iirged once more that Christ is the only foun-
dation of the Church, that Paul had not admitted the human
authority of Peter in matters of faith, and denounced as
vicious Eck's charge that he was a friend of the Bohemians.

Eck replied that the Greeks had often been revealed as
schismatics and heretics, and that Aquinas had written
against their errors. The old councils, he said, ascribe the
primacy to the Pope, and Augustine calls this "the ancient
rule." This father had finally arrived at two opinions re-
garding the meaning of Matt. 16, 18, but all the other fathers
had interpreted the rock to mean Peter. Moreover, the pri-
macy had been conferred on Peter also in John 21, 16, as
Chrysostom and Gregory testify. Peter's hypocrisy he de-
clared a venial sin. The term "Cephas" might mean "head."

168 18. REMAINDER OF THE DEBATE ON THE PRIMACY.

He insisted that tte authority of the Council of Constanz
must remain inviolate; the articles there condemned must
not be regarded as supposedly or fictitiously false ': the visible
Church and the elect are not identical; God and man, not
deity and humanity, are one Christ, etc. After His ascen-
sion Christ must have a 'vicegerent on earth, because the
responsories in some churches declare this; and if this were
not so, whence would the Augustinian monks derive their
privileges ?

Luther responded briefly that after three days' arguing his
opponent had not yet established from Scripture the divine
right of the papacy, except by a futile appeal to Matt. 16, 18,
in regard to which passage he had not been able to prove that
his interpretation of it was correct. He reserved the right to
speak about the articles of Hus later.

The session was adjourned till the next morning.

On Thursday, July 7, Ech opened the discussion by com-
plaining that Luther had bellowed his arguments at the
learned gentlemen present like an ox. The divine right of
the papacy, he declared, is established primarily from the
passage Matt. 16, 18; this the fathers had believed; the
councils had acknowledged it; at Constanz it had been
maintained over against Hus.

Luther now rose to thank Duke George for giving him
permission in the previous session to make his last statement
when the time for adjournment had already arrived. Con-
tinuing in German, he said that he did not deny that human
right of the papacy, and then proceeded with his argument
in Latin, stating that the majority of the fathers do not
understand the rock to signify Peter, while the rest are un-
decided. The Asiatic bishops, Irenaeus and others, he said,
had reprimanded the Pope, and the best of the Greek fathers
had never been under the Pope; Gregory the Great had
opposed the absolute primacy. In John 21, 16 no supremacy
is conferred on Peter, at least, no such authority as the
present Pope has, but he is merely exhorted for the love of
Christ to do and to suffer all things in behalf of the Church.
Now, where is there such a pope? Luther asked. He pro-

18. KEMAINDEK OF THE DEBATE ON THE PRIMACY. 169

ceeded to emphasize cordial love as the great duty inculcated
in this text, and this love, he said, concerns all teachers.
A wicked teacher, also a wicked Pope, must either mend his
ways or be deposed. In conclusion, Luther expressed the
wish that the order of mendicant friars might be abolished,
because of the foolish opinions that these people hatched
and disseminated among the people. "This is all I have to
say in rebuttal of Eck's arguments," Luther declared; "and
now I shall proceed to attack him with direct counter-
arguments."

Ech protested, but Duke George ruled that Luther should
proceed.

Against the assumed divine right of the Pope, Luther
cited three texts: 1 Cor. 3, 5. 22: "What is Cephas? . . .
Cephas is yours" ; Gal. 1, 17 f . : "Neither went I up to Jeru-
salem to them that were apostles before me" ; Gal. 2, 6 : "But
of those who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were,
it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person;)
for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added
nothing to me."

Ech replied that 1 Cor. 3 must be interpreted according
to the Olossa and Jerome; in Gal. 1 only this is stated, viz.,
that Paul was equal to Peter in the apostolate, but the gov-
ernment of the Church must be regarded as an entirely
different matter; for so the Council of Constanz had de-
creed over and against Hus. He repeated his statement that
the Popes had at times humbled themselves from good nature,
and all teachers ought indeed to oe truly pious men. Never-
theless, the term "feeding" in John 21, he declared, is inter-
preted by the fathers to signify the government of the
Church, and that passage does not make love a condition
of feeding.

Luther replied that he would first answer Eck's argu-
ments, and then offer his own counter-arguments. The
Roman bishops, he said, had often been consulted by others,
but they could not have humbled themselves in the sense of
submitting to others without renouncing the divine right
of the papacy, if such a right existed. The interpretation of

170 18- REMAINDER OF THE DEBATE ON THE PRIMACY.

the term "feeding" by the fathers must be examined by the
rule of the Scriptures. Even Pope Paschalis, in the de-
cretal regarding election, had admitted that John 21, 16
states a condition. And now Luther appealed once more
to the text he had cited before and said the Olossa could
not prove anything in this matter, and Jerome had mis-
interpreted the text. As a matter of fact, Paul had sub-
mitted to Peter's church government as little as to Peter's
teaching.

Uck said in reply that he must regard Luther as a heathen
if he didjiot believe the infallibility of councils. His argu-
ment became perceptibly weak, . and he merely puckered
churlishly about trifles, saying that he could not make reply
to the decretal regarding election because that decretal had
not been quoted. As to Paul, he had indeed respected Peter
as his head, because this is stated in the Epistle on the
Ascension of the Apostles. Peter might be a secondary foun-
dation, Christ being the first, just as there are twelve foun-
dation stones mentioned in Eevelation.

The debate was now closed for the day.

On Friday, Jvine 8, in the morning session, Luther was
the first speaker. He called attention to the fact that Eck
had not been able to refute the passages cited against his
position. He declared the distinction between the apostolate
and the church government futile, and for the former, he
said, Paul requires the obedience of faith. The unity of the
Church could be preserved even without a visible head, just
as in a republic. He added new proof-texts, such as 1 Cor.
12, 28, where church government is mentioned as a minor
grace, and therefore cannot be that primacy for which
a divine right is claimed. Furthermore, Acts 1, 26; 13, 2,
which show that the new apostle Matthias was not ordained
by Peter, as little as Paul and Barnabas. Likewise Gal. 2,
8. 9, which show that in the division of the mission terri-
tory between Peter and Paul the larger (Jistrict had been
given to Paul. Finally, he said, that if there may be twelve
foundation stones in the Church, just &s in the foundation
of the celestial city, the Pope cannot be the only foundation.

18. KEMAIXIIEB OF THE DEIiATIO 0.\ THE PRIJtACY. 171

Eel- replied: We must reconcile conflicting Scripture-
passages by inventing distinctions: only in the choice of an
apostle God had indeed been a respecter of persons. To cite
1 Cor. 12. against the primacy he declared quite unnecessary.
He referred Rev. 21 only to the apostolate, not to the pri-
macy. He asserted that Matthias and the other apostles had
indeed been created bishops by Peter, for Christ had merely
made them priests. For Peter he claimed' many distinctions
above the other apostles; for instance, Peter had been the
first speaker in Acts 1, 15, had rebuked Ananias, had estab-
lished the church of Antioeh, etc. Gal. 2, 8, he declared,
only states a fact, not a right. He closed his argument with
the statement that he rested his case with Matt. 16, IS, and
added that Peter had been named in the first place in Matt.
10, 2 and at the payment of the tribute in Matt. IT, 27 had
been made equal with Christ, that Christ had pra.yed for his
constancy, had said to him : "Follow thou Me," and that
Peter alone had walked with Christ on the sea. "I must
severely stress this point," he said; "in all the other points
you will find me yielding."

At the opening of the afternoon session Luther reminded
his opponent that according to their agreement the debate
on the present subject must be closed at this session ; ac-
cordingly he would make only a brief reply. What Eck had
adduced as preferences accorded Peter is also said of other
apostles, or it does not relate to the primacy at all. The
faith which Peter had professed in Matt. 16, 18, Luther said,
has never ceased, but Peter at once ceased being a believer
while the thief on the cross believed. Christ's command to
Peter, "Follow thou Me," refers to Peter's suffering and
death. To rebuke the striving for a primacy, Christ had
placed a child in the midst of the disciples. Moreover,
Luther said, he might cite the fact that Peter had received
and accepted a commission from the other apostles, and had
acted upon their instruction. Acts 8, 13 ; that James had
been the directing genius in Acts 15. But he was willing
to leave to Peter his primacy of honor, denying only his
primacy of power.

172 18. KEMAINDER OF THE DEBATE ON THE PKIMACV.

Eclc, Still trying to secure for the Pope superiority, said :
Surely, there must have been some one to ordain the apostles ;
for Christ did not do it. Bernard and other fathers had all
seen indications of the primacy of Peter in the texts cited
by him, and he would take his stand with them. Cyprian,
too, understands by the faith of Peter the teaching of the
Eoman Church. As to Peter's being sent by the other
apostles, he was not sent as a subaltern, but in the same
manner as the Father sent the Son. At the apostles' council,
he said, Peter yielded to James on account of the latter's age.
"With the fathers, he averred, he would defend not Peter's
primacy of honor, but of power.

Luther's reply was very brief: With Augustine, he said,
he did not deny the Pope's authority over the bishops, but
he could not agree with Bernard. Each one of the apostles
had been a bishop, he said; for even of Judas it is said that
his bishopric is to pass to another.

Eck exclaimed that in the passage to which Luther re-
ferred bishopric stands for apostolate.l^l)

At this point the debate on the primacy of the Pope was
closed.

The secretaries, called notaries because their work had
legal virtue, being sworn testimony, have performed their
tasks with remarkable exactness and completeness, consider-
ing that they were no stenographers. In a comparison of
the two disputants the palm will readily be awarded to
Luther. He knew his Bible; that was his chief asset in
this debate; but he was also-'well versed in the writings of
the church fathers and had studied church history with an
open mind. Eck labored under a hopeless bias; he argues
like a monomaniac who can in no wise rid himself of the
notion that has possessed him. His illustrations are built
up after the rule: Eeim' dich, oder ich fress' dich! His
historical views are puerile: he actually believed the false
decretals of the Eoman Popes to be authentic, and regarded
the writings of Dionysius Areopagita and the miserable fic-

191) XV, 929. Loescher, !. t-.. Ill, 350—411; 528 — 538.

18. REMAINDER OF THE DEBATE ON THE PRIMACY. 173

tion of the Ascension of the Apostles as genuine; he held
that there was in the primeval Church, immediately after
the ascension of the Lord, a solemn sacramental act of ordi-
nation for bishops and ministers such as the Roman Church
of his day had instituted; he spoke of Cardinal Jerome, to
the great amusement of Luther, etc. In Luther's argument
can be discerned a wise reservation. This matter was new
to him, and his Bible knowledge had not that fulness which
is observed at a later period. He was careful not to claim
more in the heat of 'the debate than he could fully maintain
with a good conscience; but he held with unflinching firm-
ness to what he had clearly understood. Wise, too, were the
remarks by which he wished to save the human prerogatives
of the papacy, the honor of the Council of Constanz, and
last, not least, his refusal of Hussite fellowship. In all the
windings of the debate he always came back to these essential
points : Let the Pope keep his superiority as a human right,
but let it be circumscribed ; let the Popes and prelates amend
their ways ; but as to a divine right of the primacy, that does
not exist, yea, it is repugnant to the mind of Christ and the
true nature of the Church. These points Luther fully estab-
lished. What did Eck gain for the papal monarchy, for the
defense of which he rushed into the fray with such a blare
of trumpets? At first he claimed for it the double primacy
of dignity and power, afterwards he dropped the primacy of
dignity because it might lead to pride, and with desperate
sophistry clung to the primacy of power. In the last analysis
the debate turned out to be a struggle for the formal prin-
ciple of the Eeformation, whether Scripture is self-inter-
preting and the sole principium cognoscendi, the sole norm
of faith, or whether it is subject to the efforts of church
fathers and church councils to fix its meaning.

Duke George, whose characteristics we have tried to
depict so often, deserves a word of commendation for his
spirit of fairness during this debate. When he had made
up his mind to have it, he also resolved that it should be
a good debate. Though his personal bias was manifest
plainly outside of the hall of debate, and once at least during

174 19. THE DEBATE ON PURGATORY.

the debate, lie endeavored to have the debate conducted in
an honest manner, and to have all due proprieties observed.
Both disputants occasionally infringed upon the rules of
the debate. Loescher has rightly, we think, remarked that
credit is due to Duke George for haying permitted the debate
at all, and has suggested that that was more than the Elector
would have done. Though Frederic had so far proved him-
self a wise and able protector of Luther, he was a very
cautious and conservative man and it is indeed a question
whether he would have consented to the debate being held
at Wittenberg.

In his Faith of Our Fathers Cardinal Gibbons treats in
chap. IX of the Primacy of Peter, and in chap. X of the
Supremacy of the Popes. When one, after reading the old
protocol of the Leipzig Debate, takes up this modem apolo-
getic for the Roman faith, one is struck with the identity
of the old and the new argument. The Cardinal is an Eccius
1-edivivus, Eck come to life again. Therefore, the old argu-
ments of Dr. Martin are stjll very useful arguments.

19. The Debate on Purgatory.

In his ninth thesis Luther had assumed, with the scho-
lastic theology of the times, that there is a purgatory, but
had claimed that it is not settled whether the souls in purga-
tory are certain of their future salvation, and whether divine
grace is effecting a reformation in them. This subject was
taken up toward the end of the session on Friday afternoon. '

Ech opened the debate with the assertion that all merit
of a person ceases with this life, therefore no reformation or
improvement can take place in purgatory. He cited for
proof Jer. 24, 14 and 2 Cor. 5, 10, buttressing these passages
with four quotations from Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine.

Luther replied that Scripture does not mention purga-
tory, and the passages cited can be understood in a better
sense, likewise the fathers that had been adduced. ISTone of
them, by the way, had mentioned purgatory directly.

19. THE DEBATE ON PUEGATOEY. j^75

Ech insisted that Paul states everybody will receive
according- to that which he has done in the body, and Jerome
says plainly that no merits can be earned after death. As to
the claim that Scripture does not mention purgatory, that
he declared a well-lmown error of the Greeks.

Luther admitted that a Scripture-proof for purgatory is
attempted by means of 2 Mace. 12, but it is not convincing
because the books of the Maccabees are not canonical. What
the fathers cited by Eck really say is that no one earns any-
thing for himself in heaven or hell.

Eclc asserted the canonicity of the books of the Maccabees
on the strength of testimonies from Augustine and Ivo, and
claimed that the testimonies which he had adduced from
the fathers referred indeed to purgatory.

In his rejoinder Luther called attention to the fact that
the Hebrew canon does not contain the books of the Macca-
bees, and that Jerome has not admitted them as parts of the
Old Testament ; Augustine's testimony, however, he claimed,
says no more than that the Roman Church has accepted these
writings. He confessed that he had no certain knowledge of
the state of purgatory and was willing to be instructed.

Here the session of Friday afternoon was adjourned.
It was reported that many in the audience had become
offended at Luther's statement that the schismatic Greeks
are saved.

Saturday morning, July 9, Eck continued his argument.
He spoke of prayers for the dead which Augustine has recom-
mended, and declared that the canon of the Roman Church
must be esteemed more highly than that of the Jewish.
Scripture-passages establishing purgatory he declared to be
the following : Ps. 66, 12 : "We went through fire and througk
water"; Ps. 17, 3: "Thou hast tried me"; Eecl. 4, 14: "Out
of prison he eometh to reign" ; Matt. 5, 26 : "Till thou hast.
paid the uttermost farthing" ; and especially, 1 Cor. 3, 15 :
"He himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." He tried to.
score a point against Luther by demanding to know how
Luther could admit at all that there is a purgatory if he

176 19- THE DEBATE 0,\ PUEGATORY.

could cite no Scripture for it. To show what happens in
death, Eck cited Eccl. 11, 3 : "If the tree fall toward the
south of toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth,
there it shall be" ; Gal. 6, 10 : "As we have opportunity, let
us do good" ; John 9, 4 : "The night cometh when no man
can work" ; Ps. 104, 23 : "Man goeth forth unto his work
until the evening." He also cited a passage from Augustine
and the special prayer for the departed from Bernard. That
the souls in purgatory are certain of their salvation he tried
to prove from Eev. 5, 13, where the creatures under the earth
are said to sing praises to God, and from the prayer in the
canon of the mass: "Lord, remember Thy servants who are
sleeping in peace."

Luther replied that he was not disputing purgatory, but
the unfounded hypotheses of theologians and scholastics re-
garding the state of the souls in purgatory which preachers
were discussing from their pulpits as if they were articles
of faith. The passages from Ps. 66 and 17 and Eccl. 4, he
declared, do not relate to this life, while the fathers are not
agreed on the meaning of the passage from Matt. 5, and
1 Cor. 3 treats of the future judgment and temporal afflic-
tions. As to the canonical books, he would adhere to the
view of Jerome. Passages like those from Gal. 6 and John 9,
he said, do not treat of purgatory, but of the coming judg-
ment, while the reference to Ps. 104 was declared an incon-
clusive deduction.

In the afternoon session Luther continued to explain his
meaning, stating that the ancient fathers and the Holy
Scriptures had not thought of purgatoiy at all, hence their
words could not be adduced in this discussion. The creatures
in Eev. 5, he said, were the dead, and their songs were such
as people raise to God in their tribulations. The canon of
the mass to which Eck had appealed was also adduced by
Luther, because it speaks of the bodies of the departed rest-
ing in their graves, and of their souls longing for peace and
recreation. He declared that while he did not ascribe any
merit to the souls in purgatory, still he claimed that they

19. THE DEBATE ON PUBGATORY. 177

must receive an increase in grace which cannot occur with-
out a removal of sin.

Ech replied that Augustine speaks distinctly of souls in
purgatory, and declares that they cannot obtain any further
merit there. For the remission of venial sins, he said, no
new grace is necessary. As to Jerome, he had not denied in
any of his writings that the books of the Maccabees are
canonical. The Council of Florence had testified that purga-
tory is founded in Scripture; ergo, Matt. 5 must relate to
purgatory because in hell no one can pay anything. 1 Cor. 3,
too, treats of purgatory, because it speaks of chaff that is to
be burned. The expression "falling to the south" in Eccl. 11
must signify blessedness in purgatory, which a person enters
in the moment of death if he ever enters it. The creatures
under the earth can only be those in hell or purgatory; for
in the latter place the souls are singing praises. The peace
and recreation for which the canon of the mass prays that
it be granted the departed can only refer to their final
deliverance.

Luther concluded this debate by declaring his inability to
see how sins can be removed without grace being increased
to a person at the same time. He appealed to Rom. 7, 24 f.
that grace alone delivers from the body of sin, not punish-
ment, and declared that also venial sins contaminate
a person. The term "till," he said, does not signify a ter-
minus in Matt. 5, just as little as the same term in Matt. 1, 25
signifies the termination of the virginity of Mary. He held
that it is proper to pray for one even when we know that he
is increasing in grace. His former writings concerning the
condition of souls in purgatory Luther declared to be mere
hypotheses that had been elaborated in his ignorance.

The time for adjournment had now arrived, and as no
more time could be allowed for the discussion of this sub-
ject, Luther in the next session handed in a written state-
ment to the notaries, in which he declared that if "being
under' the earth" in Rev. 5 signifies purgatory, then "being
under the water" in the same passage must signify another

DAD, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 12

178 20. THE DEBATE ON INDULGENCES.

peculiar place. That the bodies of the departed are resting
in peace is clearly stated in Ps. 16, 9, but this state is predi-
cated of the entire person, because, having departed, the soul
no longer operates on the body.

Eck also entered a written" statement in the protocol:
Eom. 7 refers to mortal sins ; the term "till" in Matt. 1 is
not easily explained; however, the perpetual virginity of
Mary is established from other passages, while this cannot
be done in regard to the matter of which Matt. 5 speaks.
Luther's statement that the soul obtains peace because of
the body he declared a change of position on Luther's part;
how can the souls in purgatory, said he, have rest when they
certainly have enough to do? The remainder of his state-
ment contains repetitions of his former assertions; he in-
serts them only for the purpose of saying the last word. 192)

This part of the Leipzig Debate is probably the least
satisfactory. Luther is plainly embarrassed; it is .difficult
to determine his actual belief regarding purgatory at this
time. His arguments at times have but the stringency of
ad hominem arguments. Still they effected this much that
the flimsy evidences which Eck produced for purgatory were
all rendered insecure and the majority entirely blasted. The
present discussion of this subject is but the lifting of the
cover by a hand that is still somewhat timid; later dis-
cussions laid bare in its entire enormity the utter baseless-
ness of Rome's claim that there is a purgatory, and that
her priests are entrusted with the practical management of it.

20. The Debate on Indulgences.

Monday, July 11, the debate was begun on Luther's
eleventh thesis concerning indulgences.

Eclc took the lead, and protested that in this matter the
decision of the Pope must be followed absolutely. For three
hundred years, he said, indulgences had been regarded as

192) XV, 1008 — 1042 ; Loescher, I. c. III, 411 — 438 ; 538 — 542.

20. THE BEBATE OX TXDULGEXCES. 179

efficacious, and the couueils of Vienna, Paris, and Constanz
had declared them so ; Gerson had esteemed them highly,
yea, even Gregory the Great ; the entire Church had accepted
them as valid for the year of jubilee, and the entire Church
cannot err; many kings had secured indulgence during the
crusades. Now, since indulgences represent satisfaptions ren-
dered for sin, they must be meritorious.

Luther replied that he only considered it folly to call in-
dulgences a treasure and blessing of Christians; for true
Christians are not benefited at all by them. That it is
possible for the majority of teachers to err, he claimed had
been shown during the Arian controversy. Councils and
Popes had not spoken alike regarding indulgences, and had
directed bad Christians to make use of them. The reference
to Pope Gregory he declared to be without foundation. The
indulgence of the year of jubilee had originated with Pope
Boniface, who had been the author of much evil. The indul-
gences for participation in the crusades had been permitted
by the providence of God as a punishment for men's folly.
Indulgences, he declared, do not take the place of satisfac-
tions, but hinder satisfactions. Lastly, he stated his belief
that Popes are fallible.

In his reply Ech dilated on the improvement which, he
claimed, had taken place in Luther's views of indulgences.
He declared himself largely in agreement with Luther, but
maintained still that indulgences are useful; not that they
take the place of the remission^ of sins, but they remove
temporal punishments which a person must suffer either in
this life or in purgatory. The purchase of indulgences, he
said, does not prevent good works, but stimulates the exercise
of them. This he understood to be the meaning of the coun-
cils and Popes, and these must be obeyed. If Gregory had
not said about indulgences what had been quoted, Eck
claimed, there was nevertheless a very persistent report that
he had said it. Finally, he asserted that the Pope renders
satisfaction for punishments due for sins by applying the
indulgences, which he takes from the treasury of the Church,
which treasury contains all the merits of Christ. As a Scrip-

180 20. THE DEBA.TE ON IKDLTLGENCES.

ture-proof for this view lie cited most ineptly Is. 61, 1. The
indulgences granted in the year of jubilee had been approved,
he said, by the entire Church, and for that reason they ought
to be highly esteemed. Nor ought the crusades be depre-
ciated. Thomas, Albertus Magnus, and many other saints
had endorsed these indulgences.

The protocol at this place does not state distinctly whether
the next argument was delivered in the morning or in the
afternoon session; the latter is more likely.

Luther was the speaker. He argued that the punishments
which are remitted by indulgences are such church penalties
as the confessor may impose : fasts, prayers, etc. ; for so the
text of the bulls by which indulgences are proclaimed, states.
Now, unless a person is a lazy Christian, he will be apt to
fast and pray too much rather than not enough. We must
not believe absolutely what holy men say, but test it by
Scripture. He could not see, he said, how indulgences could
benefit a person in the agony of death. Only such acts can
be truly acts of satisfaction by which a recompense or real
satisfaction is rendered. Christ has declared, he said, that
the prophecy in Is. 61 has been fulfilled by His coming;
therefore this text cannot be adduced as proof for the satis-
faction which we are rendering. The unanimous opinion of
many people who rush for the indulgences that are pro-
claimed in a year of jubilee proves nothing, because these
people are ignorant. There exists, he said, no decision of
councils or Popes that indulgences are necessary, and the
merits of Christ, which are pure grace and truth, ought not
to be mixed up with the indulgences.

Ech's reply to this argument was extremely weak. Even
when it is only penances or church fines that are remitted,
they are not remitted in so far as they are good works. It
is better, he said, that the confessor sends his penitent
parishioner to purgatory with a little punishment than to
hell with a grievous one; in this way strength is made per-
fect in weakness. In matters of faith it is indeed necessary,
he claimed, that we regard the authority of men. He closed
with the assertion, which put him back on his old ground.

21. THE DEBATE ON REPENTANCE. 181

that the person receiving an indulgence thereby renders
satisfaction for sin, because the Pope confers on him from
the treasure of Christ's merit something that is meritorious.

"I commit all," he concluded, "to the judgment of those
who are interested, and if I have said anything amiss, I am
ready to make corrections."

"So do I," Luther added.193)

It was not necessary for Luther to reply to the last argu-
ments of Eck. Prom the start Eck had shown an inclination
to lean to Luther on this matter. That is what his ingenious
discovery means that Luther's views had undergone a change
for the better. In this way he wished to cover up his retreat.
Opposition to indulgences was becoming popular, and Eck
was unhappy if he was not popular. The apparent leniency
in Luther's argumentation on this subject I am inclined to
regard as a wise pastoral policy on the part of Luther: he
wished to help the growing sentiment against indulgences to
grow into an intelligent conviction, and prevent it from
turning into a turbulent revolt of the carnal mind against
the discipline of the Church. He wished to deepen reflec-
tion rather than arouse passion; hence the unmistakably
accommodating kindliness that pervades this part of his
arguments.

21. The Debate on Repentance.

On Tuesday, July 12, the subject of repentance was taken
up for discussion, in particular the question whether re-
pentance must spring from the love of God.

Eck attacked Luther's third thesis, asserting that the be-
ginning of repentance lies in the fear of punishment, and
that this is an adequate beginning, because this had been
the method adopted by John' the Baptist when he came
preaching repentance, and because the prodigal son had thus
been converted. As a further proof he cited Ps. 89, 31 — 33,
adding that the sinner must begin from the bottom, from

19.?) XV, 1042 — 1064 ; Loescher, I. c. III, 438 — 455 ; 543—545.

182 21. THE DEBATE ON EEPE.NTANCE.

fear, and ascend gradually to the love of God. Fear, he
said, represents the medicine, but love represents health, as
Augustine, Chrysostom, Greg-ory the Great, Origen, and other
fathers have taught.

Luther replied that the full sense of Scripture is attained
only by a comprehensive study of all passages that relate to
a subject. He admitted that the threats of the Law must be
proclaimed when a person preaches repentance, and sin must
be magnified. But this does not start salutary repentance,
which is effected only by grace. Grace gives man a love for
the Word of God and His blessing; whenever this does not
take place, the sinner keeps hugging his sin amidst the
terrors of repentance and becomes a hypocrite. Free will is
no aid to repentance. The repentance of the prodigal son
began when he remembered his father's love and his former
home. Mere punishment converts no man. Is. 1, 5 f . ; Jer.
5, 3. Christ, he said, converted Zacchaeus and Magdalene
by love. The ascent from fear to love he declared to be
merely the development of a human sentiment. Not this
ascent, but the grace of God converts the sinner; this grace
it is, too, that implants in the heart of man the true fear
of God, which must be kept distinct from man's fear of
punishment.

Eel: admitted that repentance comes by si kind of inspira-
tion and by the bestowal of grace ; however, he claimed that
love is not the first thing that God communicates to man;
it is something else. We must not, he said, demand of men
that they be angels, but must be satisfied if they are only
afraid of punishment.

With this argument the forenoon session was closed.

Eel- continued in the afternoon, claiming that the re-
pentance of the prodigal had begun with fear, when he
realized that he had to feed with hogs, and could not even
have the husks that were given them; or when he began
to think of his father's hired men. It was then that the
thought of repentance was suggested to him ; but, Eck re-
marked, he would not claim that actual repentance had then

21. THE DEBATE 0.\ IiEPE>;TA?sCE. 183

begun. Tlie preaching of repentance whicli John and others
began with proclaiming the threats of the Law certainly
must produce an efPect, he said. Christ began the conver-
sion of Paul by uttering a threat to him. Servile fear, he
claimed, is also a fear of God; yea, it is the beginning of
wisdom, as Augustine and Bede teach. That is also what
Christ inculcates. Matt. 10, when He says : "Fear Him who
is able to destroy the soul." There must surely be a mean,
he said, between sin and love, and that is the fear of punish-
ment, which gradually ceases while love enters in.

Luther replied that nobody is ever disposed to repentance
by the fear of punishment. The threats of the Law only
produce hatred, which is itself a sin that must be driven out
by love. It was grace, he said, that drew the prodigal son;
otherwise he would have died rather than go back to his
father. The conversion of Paul he declared an extraordinary
event; still he would side with Augustine and believe that
even in this conversion love had been the drawing power.
When grace becomes joined to the fear of the heart, that
fear becomes a good fear; and so Augustine and Gregory
view this matter. In Matt. 10 the Lord is speaking of filial
love, but this embraces grace. There is no middle ground,
he said, between sin and grace. If £ck thought that there
was something to criticize in his preaching of repentance, he
invited him to write against it.

In his brief concluding remarks Ech developed the
thought that fear must precede and make room for love. 19^)

This part of the debate is the most enjoyable, instructive,
and incisive discussion of fundamental Christian truths. In
his lucid distinctions and illustrations in this section, Luther
is far superior to the Pelagian Eck. Eck's assumption of
a middle ground is a makeshift to which he resorts when he
is compelled to give up his original position, that repentance
means being afraid of the threatening God. The argument
from grace was so powerful that he could not maintain his
ground, and hence began to shift. But he did not really

194) XV, 1064 — 1086; Loescher, I.e., Ill, 455 — 471; 545 — 548.

184 22. DEBATE OX ABSOLUTION AND SATISFACTIONS.

surrender his position: when he declared at the end that
fear must pave the way for love, he is back at his starting-
point. If fear is able to accomplish that for man, it is fear
that has converted him. Though Luther does not emphasize
the element of faith in this discussion, it is plainly faith,
and nothing else than faith, that he describes when he speaks
of the entering in of grace into the heart of the sinner. The
penitent thoughts of the prodigal which he points out are
thoughts of a heart that trustingly embraces the grace which
pardons guilt. Excellent, too, is the characterization of the
difEerence between servile and filial fear. In this discussion
Luther plainly moves in his own peculiar domain, while Eck
sinks into the sands of scholasticism.

22. The Debate on Priestly Absolution and
Satisfactions for Sin.

In his fourth and fifth theses Luther had proposed to dis-
cuss the act by which a priest in the confessional absolves
a penitent and imposes certain exercises on him, which are
called satisfactions. This discussion began in the afternoon
session of July' 13.

Eclc tried to prove that a priest can absolve from sin, but
not from the punishment of sin. Even after a person's sins
have been forgiven, he argued, the righteousness of God de-
mands that satisfaction be rendered by the penitent for the
wrong which he has confessed, and which has been forgiven
him. He cited Augustine and Ambrose, who have said that
the punishment for sin is removed by acts of restoration or
sg,tisfaction. According to the teaching of Scripture, he
said, the fall of Adam is punished in men even after they
have received forgiveness. David had thus submitted to the
duty of rendering satisfaction, 2 Sam. 24, 14. Either man
must punish himself, or God must punish him. These exer-
cises of satisfaction are rendered not only to the Church,
but to God, as Cyprian, Augustine, and Gregory have ex-
pressly stated. There are certain cases in which the re-

22. DEBATE ON ABS0.1.UTI0N AND SATISFACTIONS. 185

mission of punisliment has been reserved to the Pope and
the prelates; this has been done in order to maintain the
distinction between the higher and the lower clergy, and the
jurisdiction which each is authorized to exercise, or there
would be no difference between a village priest and a prelate
or Pope.

Luther replied that if his opponent would name the real
punishment for inherited sin, he would have to name death
and diseases, which neither priest nor Pope could remit.
David's punishment, for instance, could not be remitted.
It is true that a person must judge himself, according to
1 Cor. 11, or God will punish him. No man can give us
a dispensation from these effects of the Fall. What Augus-
tine and Cyprian, whom the opponent had quoted, had ac-
tually said was not what Eck tried to make them say; the
former had spoken of the crosses and tribulation of the God-
fearing, while the latter referred to the sufferings of mar-
tyrs, neither of which could be remitted by the Pope. The
Church might impose certain punishments and cancel them
again, but these were not punishments which God had
ordered imposed. As to cases coming up in the confessional
that were reserved for the Pope, these had most likely been
the cause why vrickedness had' increased, particularly among
the great men of the world. It would have been better if
the old rule of church-discipline were still in vogue, which
had been followed imtil the Council of Nicea. He asserted
that a bishop and a priest had the same authority in the
sight of God, and the higher clergy ought not to create re-
served cases in order to save the consciences of men.

According to the agreement into which the disputants
had entered at the beginning of the debate, the discussion
should have stopped here. But in the morning session of
Thursday, July 14, Eck took up his argument once more and
said: Eternal punishment is changed into temporal punish-
ment by the satisfactions which the Church imposes. This
is the better way. Nothing is accomplished by allowing
a sinner to pass out of the confessional without making him
do anything. That has been the view of Augustine and

186 22. DEBATE OK" ABSOLUTION AXD SATISFACTIONS.

Ambrose, lie claimed. He advised Ljither not to draw such
•distinctions between various kinds of punishments as he had
■done; for in other cases he had manifested such aversion to
distinctions. The fundamental idea in the satisfactions im-
posed by the Church, he declared, is this: God does not
punish a second time what has been punished previously;
-accordingly, by submitting to the satisfactions a person es-
capes the punishment which God otherwise would hare to
infliet on him. Also Bede, he said, had declared that satis-
factions are rendered to God. A moderate use of the power
to establish reserved cases he considered useful ; the prelates
must have something peculiarly assigned to them, otherwise
all order would cease. And if we are able to render satis-
faction to God by our prayers and good works, the same effect
could be obtained by means of indulgences taken from the
treasury of the Church. If Luther, he said, refused to be-
lieve this, he might consider himself excommunicated.

Ifot only this speech, but also the wilful attempt which
Eck had made to prolong the debate contrary to the agree-
ment, aroused Luther's indignation. He called Eck's re-
marks silly. He charged him with having changed the point
of controversy, and with failing to reply to Scriptural argu-
ments. Eck, he said, impressed him as a man who is fleeing
from the Scriptures as the devil scampers off when he be-
holds a crucifix. With these words Luther sat down.

Once more Eck seized the floor and remarked that the
impatient monk was speaking scurrilous things, and was
making a show of giving the Scriptures the preference over
the fathers, just as if he were an oracle. He reiterated his
former assertion that God remembers the punishment due
man for his sin even when He remits that sin. The punish-
ments which Luther had mentioned as growing out of Adam's
fall he called natural punishments, while they were now dis-
cussing personal punishments. This was his parting shot.i95)

The debate between Luther and Eck closed about eight in
the morning. Luther and the majority of the Wittenbergers

195) XV, 1086 — 1101 ; Loescher, I. c, III, 471—483 ; 548—551.

22. DEBATE OX ABSOLUTION AM) SATISFACTIONS. 18T

prepared for their return to Wittenberg so(3n after the close
of Luther's part of the debate. They had been absent from
home nearly a month, and their regular work necessitated
their speedy return. Besides, Luther had arranged to meet
Staupitz at Grimma after his debate. The conclusion of the
entire debate according to agreement was to come now be-
tween Eck and Carlstadt, and for this all arrangements had
been made between Luther and his colleague. Therefore
Luther, ilelanchthon, and a number of others of their party-
left the same day for "Wittenberg. Forthwith the shout went
up in Leipzig that they had fled and had confessed them-
selves defeated; they had also ignominiously forsaken Carl-
stadt. It is not difficult to guess the inventors of this story.
How little truth there was in it was shown soon after by the
joint report which Luther and Carlstadt drew up about the
debate.

On the day before his departure from Wittenberg Luther
had issued a cutting reply to Hoogstraten, the inquisitor for
that part of Germany. In a publication of April 7, which
he dedicated to Pope Leo, Hoogstraten had reviewed the
trial of Reuchlin, which had been concluded in Hoogstraten's
inquisitorial court at Cologne. In this publication Hoog-
straten had denounced Luther as a "manifest patron" of
Reuchlin, and, referring to Luther's published views on the
primacy of the Pope, which he declared contradictory to the
Holy Scriptures and to the Council of Nicea, had called upoa
the Pope to take measures against Luther's criminal teach-
ings. Of this publication Luther was informed during his
debate with Eck. Combined with the wily arguments of Eck,
this violent attack of the inquisitor looked like a concerted
effort between the prosecutor and the executioner to put an
end to Luther's activity. Luther sketched the untenable
reasoning and tlje sanguinary utterance of Hoogstraten
against him in a leaflet that he gave to the public in the
form of a placard. It showed the world what Rome was
seeking to achieve by sterner means if its ends could not be
accomplished by this gentle debate at Leipzig.

188 23. THE CONCLUSION OF THE DEBATE.

23. The Conclusion of the Debate.

At eight in the morning on Thursday, July 14, Ech re-
sumed his argument against Oarlstadt.

In a boastful strain he asserted that the theses on free
■ndll which he had defended had not been overthrown by
Carlstadt; he would now proceed to discuss his thirteenth
thesis and show that natural man removes the obstacle to
the operations of divine grace on the heart if he does what
he can to comply with God's will. He would prove Carl-
stadt's position to be untenable, viz., that natural man acting
only with his natural powers cannot but sin. The debate on
this subject occupied the entire day and can be summed up
as follows: Eck maintained the prevalent view of scholas-
ticism that natural man secures divine grace as a reward for
his exertions to obtain it, by doing as much as is in his
power to comply with the order of salvation. He cited
Augustine, Chrysostom, Gregory of JSTyssa, and Bernard in
his defense. His basic idea was that the will in man is the
determining factor in man's actions. He limited his asser-
tion somewhat by saying that he did not mean to declare
man's exercise of his free will the principal cause of the re-
moval of the obstacle to divine grace in the heart; he only
claimed that this exercise of the will disposes man for the
reception of grace; it induces man to give his assent to the
divine offer of grace and to accept it. He found his view
corroborated by Ezek. 18, 31, where God bids man make him-
self a new heart. Predestination, he said, had nothing to do
with this matter. Carlstadt challenged the appeal to Augus-
tine by another quotation from the same father, in which he
says that man, when he does what he can, or when he acts
with his own powers, sins, and that grace alone removes the
obstacle. He also rejected Eck's appeal to Bernard by citing
the statement of this father that man's efforts to meet divine
grace and his assent to the offer of grace are caused by God.
He admitted that Gregory of N^yssa and Chrysostom had
taught as Eck had represented, as also had Origen; but
these fathers, he said, had not set forth pure doctrine at this

23. THE CONCI.USIO.N OF THE DEBATE. 189

point ; they had ascribed to man what must be ascribed to
God as the principal cause. The text from Ezekiel, he said,
only shows what we are to ask of God in prayer, for in
chap. 36, 26 'the same prophet, speaking in the name of God,
says that God will take away the stony heart. Ech argued
that a distinction must be made between the natural activity
of man in evil things and without God, and his activity in
good things and with God. In the passage from Augustine
which Carlstadt had quoted, he said, the father speaks of the
former activity of man; as to the latter, however, that must
evidently be classed with the meritorious actions of man.
He deprecated the suspicion which Carlstadt had cast on
Gregory and Chrysostom, while he admitted that the po-
sition of Origen is questionable. He reiterated his claim
that free will creates a disposition favorable to the accept-
ance of grace, and thus removes the obstacle to grace, but
he granted that the divine act of Justification by grace repre-
sents the beginning of salvation. Carlstadt accepted the
latter statement, and interpreted Eck's distinction as regards
man's activity in evil or in good things to mean that man
cannot perform any good action by himself, without the im-
pulse and drawing of God, in which sense he accepted the
definition. His final appeal he made to Phil. 2, 13.

Seckendorf has pronounced this disputation subtile, and
has betrayed impatience with it. He evidently regarded it
as unprofitable. Loescher rightly maintains that the dis-
cussion touched fundamental principles of Christianity, for
it turned upon the question whether man can claim any
merit for his acts before God. Eck affirmed this, declaring
man the principal cause of his own good works, and accord-
ing him the right to appeal to the record of his good works
before God. This view Carlstadt opposed. The element of
weakness in this part of the debate was the lack of definitions
and relevant dictinctions ; the spiritual condition of the un-
regenerate and the regenerate man should have been sharply
delimited, and the purely passive condition of man in the
former and his cooperation with divine grace by the powers
conferred on him in regeneration for the new life would

190 23. TlIK OOXCLUSIOX OF THE DEBATE.

have been brought out clearly and satisfactorily. But even
with this lack of definiteness Carlstadt had the better of the
argument. Eck felt the force of Carlstadt's reasoning; for
in the progress of the debate he began to qualify uneasily the
sweeping claims he had uttered at the beginning.

The debate on Friday, July 15, in both sessions was
a corollary to that . of the preceding day. The discussion
turned on the question whether man is sinning even in his
good works. Carlstadt aiRrmed this on the ground of Eccl.
7, 21 : "There is not a man on earth that doeth good and
sinneth not." Ech argued that it is impossible to believe
that Peter and Laurentius, while suffering martyrdom, were
committing sin. He held, with Jerome and Augustine, that
the text 'from Ecclesiastes must be understood relatively, viz.,
that the saints had been sinning before they were saints, or
occasionally while they were saints, but they were not sinning
when performing a good action. Carlstadt refused to admit
any restriction on the plainly universal scope of the text he
had quoted, and also found statements in Augustine and
Jerome to favor his view. He appealed to Ps. 143, 20, where
David in his regenerate state pleads with God not to enter
intp judgment with him; to Ps. 80, 5, where Asaph asks God
not to reject the prayer of the godly; to Ps. 116, 11, where
a martyr says : "All men are liars." He said there is but
one perfect, immaculate martyrdom, that of Jesus. Christ,
and by His sinless martyrdom Christ had to atone for the
deficiencies of the martyrdom of H^s followers. David's as-
sertion of his innocence in Ps. 17, 3 he interpreted of mortal
sins. Ech now admitted the universal force of Eccl. 7, 21,
and was willing to apply it also to saints, but not to their
every action. David's plea in Ps. 143, 20 he understood as
a plea to be spared the application of the "rigid justice" of
God ; in other places, he said, David .invites an examination
of his conduct by the "pious justice" of God, according to
which God rewards good works. The passage: "All men
are liars" he interpreted to mean: "All men are vain and,
perishable." The faint-heartedness of Christ in His last
agony he claimed to be a proof that it is not sinful to be-

2o. THE CONCLUSION OF THE DEBATE. 191

come faint-liearted ; lienoe the weaknesses of martyrs must
not be regarded as sin. Asaph's request he understood as
a request that God would not deny him his prayer or delay
his answer. Cavhtadt still maintained that Eccl. 7, 21 ap-
plies not only to all men, but also to all works of every man.
He held that when David or Job appeal to God to judge them
according to their righteousness, they mean they are sin-
cerely repenting of their sins and seeking God's pardon. He
made a very impressive appeal to 1 John 1, 8 — 10. The fact
that God rewards good works, he said, is no proof that those
works are perfect. All weaknesses, also those of the martyrs,
arise from the flesh, as Rom. 7 shows. The unceasing prayer
of the saints for God's mercy, he claimed, shows that they
put no confidence even in their good works, and that is also
what the Church declares in one of the collects which are
sung at the service : "We do not trust in our righteousness."
If there were a good work in a person's life, that person could
absolutely put his trust in that work. Is. 64, 6, however, and
many expressions in Job, show that even the righteous acts
of a righteous man give him no comfort; the godly man
feels that he must abhor also his good^works in the presence
of God. Is there not, he asked, a constant struggle in man
between the flesh and the spirit? Ech now weakened per-
ceptibly. Of course, he said, in order to be just to himself,
man must always keep himself in a humble and penitent
mood; he would also admit that venial sins may enter into
some of the good works of the godly; but he claimed that
God is not really angry at such weaknesses. He only differen-
tiates the manifestation of His grace in such instances. The
evil lust of which Paul complains he referred to sins com-
mitted before, not after, baptism. When Job shudders at
the sight of God's righteousness, he is thinking of God's
"rigid justice" ; and Isaiah, he said, only declares that,
measured against the righteousness of God, our own right-
eousness is imperfect. So, too, in the collect to which Carl-
stadt had referred, the Church merely warns against pre-
sumption, but does not reject putting confidence in one's
good works. He became apologetic in his concluding re-

192 23. THE CONCLUSION OF THE DEBATE.

marks, asking to be pardoned if he had said anything amiss.
Carlstadt replied briefly that Eck's statement, that our
righteousness is imperfect in comparison with the righteous-
ness of God, was the very point for which he was contending.
He denied that the collect to which he had alluded is directed
against presumption and claimed that it is a warning against
self-confidence. What Paul says in Eom. 7 about evil lust,
he said, is spoken by a baptized, or regenerate, person. Ech
only made the weak rejoinder that these words of Paul are
differently explained by various interpreters, and it were best
not to appeal to them in an argument. Sin in this passage,
he claimed, means punishment for sin.198)

There remained now but one point still to be discussed,
the nature of repentance, and this should have been the sub-
ject for the debate on July 16. But Duke George had noti-
fied the disputants that he could not entertain them any
longer at the Pleissenburg, for he must prepare for the re-
ception of a guest who was returning to his home from an
important political meeting at Frankfort on the Main. At
this famous imperial city of Germany the electors of the
Empire had assembled about the time when Luther started
from Wittenberg to attend the debate at Leipzig. They had
come to elect the successor to Emperor Maximilian, and
opened their diet on June 17. There was a fierce contest
for the imperial crown between Francis I of France and
Charles V; the latter was opposed by Rome, which tried
to thwart his election in the last hour by proposing Elector
Frederic of Saxony, the regent during the interregnum, as
a compromise candidate, but was defeated by the wise
humility of the Elector, who declared himself incompetent
for the position, and, moreover, considered it his patriotic
duty to favor Charles V as the logical candidate. On
June 28 — Guizot says June 18 — the election of Charles V
was effected. Thus an event of the greatest moment for the
progress of the Reformation had taken place while truth and
error had met at Leipzig in open conflict on fundamental
questions of the Christian faith of the Reformation.

196) XT, 1101 — 1130 ; Loescher, I. v., Ill, 483 — 507 ; 551 — 556.

23. THE CONOLUSION OF THE DEBATE. 193

Accordingly, the debate was terminated July 16, in the
afternoon. Dulre George had already left, and in his place
Caesar von Pflug, Dr. John Kuchel, and George von Wide-
bach presided at the closing session. The presence of the
abbots of Pforta, Pegau, and Bosau, near Zeitz, also of the
rector of the university, Wostenfeld, at the closing session
was noted. When the debate began, John Lange had been
Rector Magnificus of the university, and to him had been
assigned the honorable fimction of delivering the closing
address. He spoke an hour, and his oration was a eulogy
on theological disputations. As an oratorical product it is
inferior to the polished opening address of the artist Mosel-
lanns, but it was delivered more acceptably. The personal
references to the disputants are few and reveal an honest
effort at impartiality.

"Up, then, ye musicians," he cried at the end of his per-
oration, "and for all that we have witnessed congratulate
these great men; give your applause; break forth in joy.
As you played to the honor of the Holy Spirit at the opening,
so play again for the praise of God at the close." 1^^) Now
the Cantor of St. Thomas struck up the magnificent strains
of the Te Deum, Laudamus, after which the assembly dis-
persed. Eck remained in Leipzig nine days longer, gather-
ing laurels and enjoying himself after his fashion. He de-
ported himself as the unquestioned victor; but there were
men who questioned, and some who oi)enly denied, his vic-
tory. They were few, it is true, but it meant much in papal
Leipzig that there should be any who believed that the dis-
putants from Wittenberg had won in the famous argument.
Carlstadt returned directly to Wittenberg, and the crowd of
visitors carried the news of the great things which they had
seen and heard to many parts of Germany. For the rest of
that year the correspondence of the learned men in Germany,
Prance, and Italy is filled with references to the Leipzig
Debate.

197) XV, 1130 — 1142 ; Loescher, I. c, III, 580 — 590.

DAD, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 13

194 24. KEPORTS ABOUT THE DEBATE.

What of tte judges that were to render a verdict on the
debate? Before leaving, Luther had finally agreed that the
protocol of the debate should be submitted to the universities
of Erfurt and Paris, he reserving his right of appeal. Eck,
in accepting the faculties of the two' universities, had stipu-
lated that at Erfurt those members of the faculty who were
Augustinians should be disqualified as judges. Luther, it
will be remembered, was an Augustinian. Luther, on his
part, demanded that at both universities none who were
Dominicans or Franciscans could sit on the case. Besides,
Luther stipulated an unusual condition: he wanted laymen
to be admitted to this court, namely, the members of the two
universities who were not theologians.

The two universities were placed in a dilemma by this
agreement. Erfurt was the first to reach a conclusion in the
matter; it might be summed up in the famous dictiim of
a later Pope: Non possumus. They declared that it was for
many reasons neither wise, nor good, nor salutary, etc., but
chiefiy, it was very inconvenient, that they should be asked
to decide these strange and novel issues, and therefore they
asked to be excused. The Erench university did not reply
at all, but their endorsement of the papal bull of excommu-
nication a year later has been interpreted by inference as
a judgment of condemnation on Luther's and Carlstadt's
part in the Leipzig Debate.

24. Reports about the Debate.

Dr. Preserved Smith has reproduced a number of inter-
esting accounts of the Debate at Leipzig that serve well to
fill out the picture of the event which has been attempted in
these pages.

Eck wrote from Leipzig on July 1 to George Hauen and
Erancis Burckhardt at Ingolstadt : —

Greeting. Our friendship demands that I should give you
news of myself. At first the strong, heating beer was bad for me.
From Pfreimd to Gera I didn't have a single drink. At Leipzig

24. REPOKTS ABOUT THE DEBATE. 195

also the beer was bad for me, so I stopped drinking it for six
days, and feel better. . . .

Luther and Carlstadt entered in great state, with two hundred
Wittenberg students, four doctors, three licentiates, many pro-
fessors, and many Lutherans, Lang of Erfurt, the Vicar, impudent
Egranus, the preacher of Goerlitz, the pastor of Ahnaberg, Bohe-
mians, and Hussites sent from Prague, and many heretics, who
give out that Luther is an able defender of the truth, not inferior
to John Hus. .

So far of Carlstadt; now of the other monster, Luther. (On
the margin Eck wrote: "I have done Luther a good mischief, of
which I will tell you orally.") At his arrival I heard that he
did not want to debate, and I moved everything to get him to.
We met in the presence of the ducal commissioners and of the
university; I left everything to them; they wanted Luther to
debate on the same conditions as Carlstadt, but he said much
about instructions from his prince. I said to him I did not want
the Elector as judge, though I did not exclude him; that he
might choose a university, and if Germany were too small, he
might take one abroad, in France or Spain. But he would not
have any judge, and was therefore not admitted to debate; for,
according to the ducal instructions, no one should debate who did
not allow a judge. I desired at that time that the commissioners
and university should give me a testimony of this, although many
of them are Lutherans. Dr. Auerbach, the physician of the Arch-
bishop of Mayence, and the doctor of the Counts of Mansfeld, and
many others urged Luther on, as he would lose every one's favor
if he would not allow any judge in the world. . . . Finally, we
agreed to decide on a judge at the end of the debate, and in the
mean time that it should (not) be allowed to have the debate
printed. . . . The Wittenbergers are full of gall, rage, and poison,
and arouse odium against me. The Town Council received so
many threats from them, though none of them were definite, that
on the same night they put a guard of thirty-four armed men in
the next houses, so that if there was any disturbance, its authors
might get what they deserved.

People still put their hopes on Luther, but none whatever on
Carlstadt. Luther was not allowed to preach at Leipzig, but the
Duke of Pomerania, who is Eector of Wittenberg, at the sug-
gestion of the monk, got him to preach on the Gospel for the day
in the castle, which he. did. The whole sermon, delivered on
June 29, was Bohemian. On the next morning, Sunday, at the
desire of citizens and doctors, I preached and rebutted his hair-
splitting errors. . .198)

198) Luther's Oorresp., I, 196 f.

196 24. KEPOETS ABOUT THE DEBATE.

From the account given in the preceding chapters the
misstatements of Eck in this letter can be corrected.

Dr. Auerbach,199) to whom Eck refers in his letter, has
written his impressions of the Debate in a letter to Spalatin,
dated July 19 : —

... At Leipzig, in the castle, I attended the theological debate
of Eck, Carlstadt, and Iiuther. Eck, the loud theologian, and
Carlstadt disputed on free will. Martin Luther, a man famous
for eloquence, divinity, and holiness of life, disputed with Eck
on the power of the Pope, on purgatory, indulgences, and the
power of priests to loose and bind, whether they all have it or
not, and on some other obscure theological points. It is extra-
ordinary how much holy theological learning was modestly dis-
tilled by Martin. He seems to me a man worthy of immortality.
He uttered nothing but what was sound and wholesome, omitting
all heathen learning, and content only with the majestic Gospel
and writings of the apostles. Some, infected either with unbe-
coming legality or with malice, reviled him. He was like a harm-
less sheep among wolves, and the more hostile they were to him,
the greater and more holy was his learning. Did I not know
that you were already favorable to him, I would write to you
to commend him to the Elector; but there is no need of spurring
one running of his own accord. . . .200)

Melanchthon has given his impressions in a letter of
July 21, addressed to John Oecolampadius at Augsburg : —

. . . And to begin at the beginning, Eck last year published
some notes called Oielisks on Luther's Theses on Indulgences, and
he wrote too bitterly for me to quote anything from them. Carl-
stadt picked out some of Eck's propositions in his Theses, which
are published. Eck answered in an Apology, which was somewhat
milder than the Ohelisks. Carlstadt confuted the Apology in a
pamphlet; it was a tedious accusation expressed a^ length. Omit-
ting details, it was determined to dispute on the chief point. The
day was set. Eck, Carlstadt, and Luther came together at Leipzig.
The subject of the debate was digested in a few propositions to

199) "Stromer von Auerbacli (1482 — November, 1542), famous as
the first host of 'Auerbach's Keller' celebrated in Goethe's Faust, ma-
triculated at Leipzig 1497, M. A. 1502, taught philosophy, Rector of the
tJniversity 1508. Then he studied medicine, becoming M. D. in 1511,
and in 1516 was made professor of pathology. In 1519 he married]
and in 1524 became dean of the medical faculty. He was a friend of
Erasmus and Reuchlin, and special physician to Albrecht of Mayence."
(Pres. Smith.)

200) I. u., I, 199 f.

24. KEPOBTS ABOUT THE DEBATE. 197

make it more definite. I think you will agree that it is proper
in a debate to have notaries take down the speeches, and to have
their reports published, so that each may judge the merits of
the debaters. But Eck first told the judges appointed by Duke
George of Saxony, that Maecenas of humane letters, that he did
not agree to this plan, for he thought that the nature of the
debate precluded its being reported, for that the force of the
debaters was increased by speaking ex tempore and would be de-
decreased by the delay of writing, that while minds were stimu-
lated by rapidity, they would be enervated by delay. But it
seems to me that this is just what is to be desired. . . . You
know how Nazianzen advises this, and how Erasmus does. (Fol-
lows a description of the debate between Carlstadt and Eck on
free will.)

Then Martin descended into the arena; for up to this time it
was uncertain whether he would debate, because he was not able
to appoint judges in such a delicate matter, saving his right to
appeal. However, when this was settled, he began to debate on
the power of the Pope, and whether it could be considered as exist-
ing jure divino. For he frankly confessed its existence de facto,
and only disputed the divine right. As the dispute waxed some-
what sharp, five days were spent on this point. Eck spoke bit-
terly and discourteously, and tried every means to excite odium
against Luther among the people. Eck's first argument was that
the Church could not be without a head, since it was a corporate
body, and, therefore, that the Pope was jure divino head of the
Church. Then Martin said that Christ was the Head of the
Church, which, being spiritual, needed no other, as is said in
Col. 1, 18. Eck replied by citing several passages from Jerome
and Cyprian, which, he thought, proved the divine right. But
now certain passages in those writers whom he cited as sure
supporters were quoted as showing that they were doubtful. He
boasted the authority of Bernard's epistle to Eugenius, as if it
were Achilles in his magic armor, although there are certain
things in that very book which support Luther's position. More-
over, who is so stupid as not to see what small authority Bernard
could have had in this matter? From the Gospel Eck quoted the
text, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will found My
Church." Luther interpreted that as a confession of faith; said
that Peter represented the Church, and that the rock on which
Christ founded the Church was Himself; and he proved this by
the order of the words. Again, that text, "Feed My sheep," was
said to Peter, alone and privately, as Luther alleged, after the
like authority had been given to all the apostles, in the words,
"Receive the Holy Spirit; and whose sins ye loose on earth
shall be loosed unto them in heaven," etc. With these words, he

198 -^- EEPORTS ABOUT THE DEBATE.

said, Christ showed what it was to feed the sheep, and what sort
of man He wished the shepherd to be. Against this Eck urged
the authority of the Council of Constanz, where Luther's propo-
sition had been condemned as one of Hus's articles, and where
it was said that it was necessary to salvation to believe the
Roman Pontiff was universal. He advanced several reasons to
show that a council could not err. Luther prudently replied
that all the condemned articles should not be considered heretical,
and he added more on the authority of a council, which it w6uld
be tiresome to report here. Plainly, however, a council cannot
found articles of faith. The audience did not care for this propo-
sition, because it seemed as if Luther were resisting the authority
of councils, whereas he desired nothing more devoutly than their
authority. He was therefore accused of heresy, Hussite opinions,
and crimes of that nature. Eck conceded that the authority of
all apostles was equal, but that it did not follow that all bishops
were equal. .

After this they debated on the power of the Pope over souls
in purgatory, and Eck took a new tack and began to prove from
the text in Maccabees that purgatory existed. Luther, following
Jerome, denied that Maccabees was authoritative. . .

In Luther, now long familiarly known to me, I admire a lively
talent, learning, and eloquence, and cannot help loving his sincere
and entirely Christian mind. Greet our common friends. You
know the Greek proverb, that there is much vain boasting in war.
Wherefore do not believe all that is told you about the result of
this debate.201)

The conceit and boldness of Eck are revealed in a letter
which he addressed to the Elector Erederic of Saxony on
July 22 : —

Serene, high-born Elector! My humble, ready service to your
Grace, together with my poor prayers to God for you. Most
gracious Lord! I humbly pray your Grace not to take it ill nor
with displeasure that I have allowed myself to debate with your
Grace's professors from Wittenberg, for I did not do it to hurt
your Grace's university, but, on the contrary, am much inclined
to serve your Grace, as one who is' renowned before other princes
of the Empire for cherishing letters and learned men. But only
for the sake of the truth of the holy faith have I debated, and
because Dr. Carlstadt compelled me to by printing and publish-
ing certain Conclusions with many words of contempt and revil-
ing against me, although he had no cause to insult people thus.
As to Dr. Luther, whom I pity because of the singular excesses

201) I. v., I, 200 ff.

24. REPORTS ABOUT THE DEBATE. 199

into whicli his fair genius has fallen in taking up this matter,
I was compelled to answer, him because of his publication of
a great deal of stuff from which, in my poor opinion, much error
and scandal will arise. Your Grace may judge that he does not
to this day in the least moderate his views, in that on a certain
matter he denies and repudiates the opinion of the holy fathers
Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory, Leo, Cyprian, Chrysostom,
and Bernard. It sounds evil for a Christian to presume to say
that of his own wisdom he understands the sense of Holy Scrip-
ture better than the holy fathers. It is also hard to hear him
say, as he did in the debate, that many articles of John Hus
and the Bohemians, condemned by the holy Council of Constanz,
are most Christian and evangelic. It is easy to imagine what
joy the heretics conceive on hearing such things. He also says
that St. Peter did not have the primacy over the other apostles
from Christ, and many other things. As a Christian prince your
Grace may judge whether these and similar things may be allowed
in Christianity. In my poor opinion they cannot be; wherefore,
solely for the sake of the truth, I will withstand them where I can.

Neither Dr. Luther nor any one else can say that he has re-
ceived a pennyworth of his doctrine from our Holy Father, the
Pope, or from the great heads of the Church. Yet I, although
a poor parson, came here at my own expense to meet your Grace's
professors, and am still ready, if Dr. Luther thinks he has not
yet debated enough, to go with him to Cologne, Louvain, or Paris.
For I know just what they will do. For when they proposed to
me the University of Leipzig, they would have had it thought
that they had refused to debate there, but that I compassed it
with the prince and the university. Most gracious lord, I do
not mean to reproach Dr. Luther with all this, nor do I write
to injure him, but only to excuse myself to your Grace, who would
otherwise hear untruths to my dishonor; and I also give your
Grace occasion to consider what you owe to Christ, the Christian
religion, the land, and the people. Long ago I desired to excuse
myself to your Grace, and came to your Grace's court at Augs-
burg six times, and I know not for what reason I was not allowed
to come before your Grace.

Although your Grace's professors departed with sundry threats
to write much, I debated in such wise that it would be unnecessary
to write anything. For we made an agreement to keep still until
judgment shall have been given by the universities selected as
umpires. Wherefore I left them free choice of all the universities
which are in good repute in the whole of Christendom, to take
which ones they liked. Well, let them write; I don't care much,
only I wish they wrote with the seriousness demanded of the sub-
ject, and not so frivolously, impertinently, and a;busively, espe-

200 24. REPOBTS ABOUT THE DEBATE.

eially as I am sure your Grace has no pleasure in such words.
What is written by theologians should be in such language that
any one who reads it may understand that a theologian has
written with the purpose of seeking the truth, and not like
a groom who is only able to revile people. . .

P. 8. — Most gracious lord, it has just occurred to me that
in debating with Dr. Luther on the power of the Pope, I took
away the ■ whole foundation of his argument. For his position
is not novel, many mistaken persons have held it before. But
if from mere suspicion he has conceived the opinion that some
of your Grace's subjects have given me his recently printed book
(as they have told Caesar Pflug that they think Dr. Peter Burck-
hardt has done so ) , let me say that this is false, and that they
do Dr. Burckhardt and the others wrong, for he has never men-
tioned the matter to me, and I have not yet seen the book, un-
less, as I thought, he read from it at the debate. But I know
well enough from similiar writings what it contains. Your Grace
would do a praiseworthy act to burn it on a bonfire.202)

What was Eck's object in writing this intrusive letter?
Partly, to inflame the Elector against Luther. The book to
which he refers in his postscript, which, as is often the case,
reveals the matter that was on his mind most, is Luther's
Exposition of his Thirteenth Thesis on the Primacy of the
Pope. But another motive of his was to intimidate both the
Elector and the Wittenberg professors, and to forestall their
exposing him in print. He calculated that he might fail in
his first object; in that case he would be satisfied to succeed
in the second. While the Wittenbergers kept silence, as he
urged they should do, he intended to be busy in secret under-
mining their influence, as the next letter will ' show. As it
turned out, he failed in both objects.

On July 24 Eck addressed the following letter to the in-
quisitor for Germany, James Hoogstraten, at Colore : —

I would not have you ignorant, reverend father, how I have
hitherto withstood those rash men of Wittenberg who despise all
the doctors of the last four hundred years, no matter how holy
and wise, and who disseminate many false and erroneous ideas
among the people, seducing and infecting them chiefly by means
of words printed in German.

202) I. v., I, 202 £E.

24. KEPORTS ABOUT THE DEBATE. 201

Recently we disputed at Leipzig, before an audience of learned
men, who had come together from all parts, where (praise, honor,
and glory be to God ! ) their reputation, even with the vulgar,
was much diminished, and was completely destroyed with most
learned men. You should have heard their rash assertions, how
blind they were and bold to commit crimes.

Luther denies that Peter was the prince of the apostles; he
denies that obedience is owed to the Church by divine law, but
only by human agreement, that is, by agreement of the Emperor.
He denies that the Church was built on Peter. When I cited on
this point Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Gregory, Cyprian, Chrys-
ostom, Leo, Bernard, and Theophilus, he repudiated them all
without blushing, and said that he alone would oppose all of
them, relying only on the text that Christ was the foundation
of the Church, and that other foundation can no man lay. I did
away with this by citing Revelation 21, about the twelve founda-
tions. Luther also defended the Greeks and schismatics, saying
that they would be saved even if they are not under the obedience
of the Pope.

Of the articles of the Bohemians, he says that some of those
condemned by the Council of Constanz are most Christian and
evangelic ; by which rash error he frightened many, and alienated
those who had previously supported him.

Among other things I said to him : If the primacy of the Pope
is merely a matter of human law and of the agreement of the
faithful, where does he [Luther] get the dress he wears? Where
does he get the power of preaching and of hearing confessions
of his parishioners, etc.? He answered that he wished there were
no mendicant orders, and many otKer scandalous and absurd
things, as, that a council, consisting of men, could err, and that
purgatory was not proved by the Bible, as you may see by read-
ing our debate, which was taken down by faithful notaries.

There were many of them ; besides the two doctors, there was
their Vicar Lang, two licentiates in theology, a nephew of Reuch-
lin, who assumes a good deal [Melanchthon had passed a note to
Carlstadt during the debate, which Eek resented], three doctors
of law, several professors who aided him privately and publicly
even in the course of the debate. But I alone, with nothing but
right on my side, withstood them.

To brothers of your order I committed the carQ of copying the
debate and sending it to you as soon as possible. Wherefore
I pray you by him whom I serve, zealously to defend the faith
as you long ago undertook to do. I do not wish you to involve
yourself, or make either your person or your order odious, but .
please aid me with your advice and learning. The Wittenbergers
hesitated to debate; in fact, they sought excuses. Luther was

202 24. EEPOETS ABOUT THE DEBATE.

at first unwilling to take as judge any university in the world.
The most Christian Duke George of Saxony would not allow any
dispute on articles of faith unless it should be referred for judg-
ment to the masters of our faith. Luther was therefore forced
and spurred on by his followers, for had he not debated and ad-
mitted some judge, they would all have receded from him. When
I then offered him his choice of all the universities, he chose Paris
and Erfurt.

As I know that your university has close relations with Paris,
I beg you earnestly, for the sake of Christ'si faith, to write to
your friends there, or even, if it seem good, to the whole uni-
versity, that when the excellent Duke George shall write them
and send the debate with a request for judgment, they may not
decline, but should undertake it like champions, as we have both
agreed to them as judges, and I think the matter is so plain that
it will not need long discussion. . . .

On the day of St. Peter, in the absence of the Duke, Luther
delivered at court a sermon full of Hussite errors. Straightway
on the day of the Visitation of the Virgin and the day after,
I preached against his errors to a larger audience than I have
ever had, and I stirred up in the people disgust for Lutheran
errors, and I will do the same to-morrow when I bid Leipzig
good-bye. . . .203)

There are in this letter prevarications in the •form of mis-
statements such as we noticed before. But there is also
a dastardly feature in this particular letter: Eck is light-
ing the funeral pyre for Luther by summoning the canonical
hangman to his aid, and as one step towards that goal at-
tempts to have the judges of the debate suborned.

We have also a letter of the noble Amsdorf about the
Leipzig Debate. It was written on August 1 : —

It would be long and prolix to relate the order and procedure
of the Leipzig debate; much more prolix and tedious to describe
the same. For as often as I think of the said debate, I am moved
and kindled, not, as God knows, for the love I bear Dr. Luther,
but for that I bear the truth. I doubt not that truth is certain,
unchangeable, .and eternal, though hated by all gross fellows.
Even before this time I knew that what Eck and his supporters
brought forth was falsehood.

This is not remarkable, for Eck is entirely unversed in the
Holy Scriptures. And, what is more, he does not even know as

203) I. c, I, 205 fE.

. 24. KEPOBTS ABOUT THE DEBATE. 203

much sophistry as a man who wants to be thought so great a de-
bater ought, for he boasts and claims to be a father and patron
of sophistry. For I have smelled about a little, and understand
the affair rightly (although I have neither reason nor discrimina-
tion ) , namely, that Eck speaks all that is in his mind and memory
without reason, judgment, or discrimination, although he can
utter the words he has learned with great pomp and proper ges-
ture. He does not seek the truth, but only to show oil his memory
and to defend the teachers of his school. . . .

That you may believe that what I say is true, hear a text of
the Bible which, with the counsel of the inept and unlearned
sophists of Leipzig, Eck cited and brought forward to defend
papal indulgence. It stands in Is. 61, I: "The Spirit of the Lord
is upon Me; therefore the Lord hath anointed Me to preach good
tidings unto the meek; he hath sent Me to bind up the broken-
hearted, to proclaim to the captives indulgence," that is, forgive-
ness of sins. See, my dear Spalatin, this one word [indulgence],
which these famous sophists of Leipzig found in the large Con-
cordance to the Bible,204) they wrote for Eck with chalk upon
a blackboard and sent to him the following day to support papal
indulgences which have recently been invented for the sake of
gain. For the prophet does not speak of the forgiveness of sin
by indulgence, but of our Lord and Savior becoming a man. Just
look at the unhappy, stupid sophists. But I am not surprised,
for they know nothing. But I am surprised that Eck took the
said text into the debate, and uttered it before so remarkable
an assembly, and dictated it to the notaries.

It is true, however, that Eck surpassed Dr. Carlstadt by far in
memory and delivery, so that I was sorry that the thing had
been begun, not because Eck won the victory, but because, had
the speeches not been taken down in writing, our champions would
have come off with great shame. For Eck argues and turns
around in the Italian manner with nine or ten arguments, by
which he does not seek to establish the truth, but only his own
honor, just as all sophists, that is, all schoolmen, do. . . But
the audience consider him the victor who shouts the loudest and
has the last word, and for these reasons the men of Leipzig honor
Eck as the victor. .

I do not consider Eck equal to Luther either in doctrine or
art, either in delivery or memory; I would as soon compare
stones or mere filth to pure gold. . . .205)

204) The Latin Bible has "indulgentiam" where our Authorized
version has "liberty" in this text.

205) I. c, I, 209 flf.

204 25. EXIT DK. ECK.

The opinions here expressed are significant, not so much
as revealing the impression which Luther had made at Leip-
zig on thoughtful minds, as rather for the freedom with
which prominent men are discussing matters which a gen-
eration ago would be uttered only with bated breath between
very intimate friends. This freedom of discussion is one of
the immediate results of the Leipzig Debate. Dogmas that
had been intrenched for centuries in positions of inconquer-
able strength had all of a sudden become debatable subjects.
To the Eoman autocrats these questioning, disputing, chal-
lenging voices seemed a hideous discord, but a shoemaker in
Kuemberg heard in them the melodies with which God's
feathered chorus in meadow and field greets the dawn of
a sunlit day.

25. Exit Dr. Eck.

We shall now dismiss one of the characters that has
figured so prominently, but also so ignobly, in this historical
review.

His eagerness had prompted, his versatility had enabled,
and his audacity had braved him to send to the Saxon Elector
unasked-for information regarding the Leipzig Debate, and
to offer to the prince unsolicited advice what to do with the
two heretics who, he said, were making his university in-
famous. The Elector sent Eck's letter to Wittenberg, with
a note, and it remains now to see in what manner Luther
and Carlstadt disposed of Eck's letter. In a joint reply to
the Elector, dated August 18, they say : —

Moat serene, etc., etc. We have received your Grace's note
with Dr. Eck's letter and noted the contents. Dr. Eck says he
does not intend to slander us before your Grace, and yet labors
with his sophistry and habitual loose talk to get your Grace, only
on the strength of his letter and hasty judgment, to drive us out
of the land. We are not surprised that he considers your Grace
such a person as he dares address such a letter to. For we learn
every day more clearly that Dr. Eck is and remains Dr. Eck, do
what he will.

May your Grace not take it ill that we have not given you

25. EXIT DB. ECK. 205

an account of this debate before. For we esteeJn it an unfortunate
affair, carried on with mere hatred and envy, wherefore we did
not wish to be the first of whom people could say (as Dr. Eck
unnecessarily fears they will) that we desired with our glory to
shame others. But as we are forced by Dr. Eck's letter, we pray
that your Grace will hear the affair with kindly patience, al-
though we are sorry to inflict so long and unprofitable a story
on your Grace. But the affair will speak for itself, and show
whether Dr. Eck, with all his boasting and protestation, is in-
clined to serve or to hurt your Grace's university.

In the first place, Dr. Eck complains that I, Andrew Carlstadt,
published certain theses against him, with sarcasms and con-
temptuous words, although he does not think that I have any
right to insult people. I reply: Dr. Eck can esteem me as he
likes, but it would have mightily become him, had he, along with
his complaint, told how he attacked Dr. Luther, to revile and
shame us and your Grace's university. His words would have
been too much even for a bad woman, for in his poisonous
Obelisks he reviled him as a Hussite, a heretic, a rebel, a shame-
less brawler, a new prophet, and everything else he pleased, more
than twenty times, as much as I, who was too moderate against
his misconduct, eVer called him for the vindication of our honor.

For I think Dr. Eck has much less right, not only to revile
such a man, but to slander all of us, to the shame of your Grace's
university, and so criminally to libel us without any ground or
reason. And if the goad pricks Dr. Eck too hard, the said
Obelisks are at hand, and we will publish them, which hitherto,
to spare his honor, we have refrained from doing. We have de-
served his great ingratitude by not paying him back in kind.
And if necessary, we will also collect .on paper all the ugly, sharp,
disagreeable words and gestures with which he made the defeat©
a simple obstacle to the truth. . . .

May God reward him for pitying me, Martin Luther. I would
only like to hear what are the "singular excesses" for which he
so mercilessly punishes me. But I can have nothing to do with
him on articles of faith, except perhaps in that of penitence; as
for my opinion on indulgences, purgatory, and the power of the
Pope, I confess that, "according to his poor opinion" (as he truly
says), I have made much scandal and offense, not for the com-
mon people, but for the Pharisees and scribes, for whom also-
Christ and all the apostles made offense. Truly, I cannot stop,
doing this even now, whether it wins the "good opinion" of Dr. Eck.
or not.

He blames me shamelessly for denying the authority of all the'
holy fathers at once, Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory, Leo„
Chrysostom, etc., and for arrogating to myself alone the under-

206 25. EXIT DR. ECK.

standing of Scripture. Thti^ it is fitting that a Doctor of Divinity
should speak out roundly and forcibly before a, prince. Your
Grace may note how much inclined Dr. Eck is to serve us, in
daring cheerfully to write such things about us. Had he said
that I had contradicted some fathers, he would have had a show
of reason, but his own clear conscience knows that it is not true
that I contradicted them all. Let me tell your Grace the exact
truth: I did, indeed, set one doctor, with the text of the Bible,
against another, whom Dr. Eck cited alone, naked and without
the Bible, and I will not cease doing this my life long. That is
•what Dr. Eck calls contradicting all the holy fathers, and says
that it sounds badly in the new Eckian Christianity. . . .

For I have said that when I had a clear text, I would stand
by it, even if the exegesis of the teachers were contrary to the
sense. St. i^ugustine often does this and teaches us to do it.
For, as the lawyers say, we should put more faith" in one man
who has the Bible for him, than in the Pope and a whole council
without the Bible. From him, my dear friends. Dr. Eck and the
men of Leipzig, conclude roundly that I have repudiated all
teachers. What can one do with such false tongues and hearts?
In like manner he has thrown up at me the Council of Constanz,
and accuses me of contradicting it. I will answer this charge
in due time, and show his false heart to the world. . . .

(The rest of this letter is a long argument of ten pages on
the power of the Pope and the other points which came up in
the debate with Eck.) 206)

Prom now on Eck becomes the embodiment of tbe
Eoman opposition to the Reformation. He is, directly or
indirectly, connected with every measure adopted by the
Curia to crush the "rebellion and apostasy," as Leo XIII
has called the Reformation. He is the counter-reformer be-
fore the counter-reformation. His theological labors center
about Luther and his work; take that away, and he is
nothing. He became famous only as an antithesis, and
maintains a precarious notoriety in encyclopedias to-day
only as the great anti-Lutheran. He is the shrewdest, most
persistent, and most relentless single enemy that Luther had.
What the Catholic Church of to-day thinks of him, the fol-
lowing estimate may serve to show : —

The Disputation of Leipzig formed the turning-point in Bck's
intellectual development and in his activity as a theologian.

206) I. c, I, 212 £f. XV, 1306 fE.

25. EXIT DR. ECK. 207

Thenceforth he is a prominent figure in the history of that period.
With a clear insight into the meaning of Lutheranism, he was
the first to champion the cause of Catholic teaching against
Protestant error; and he became Luther's ablest opponent, skil-
ful, untiring, and thoroughly equipped in theology. The rest
of his life was spent in conflict with the Reformers in Germany
and Switzerland. He defended the Catholic Church, its doctrines
and its institutions, in his writings, in public debates, in his
speeches at the diets, and in his diplomatic missions. . . . During
the same year (1519) he published several essays attacking the
tenets of Luther, and grew steadily in prominence as an- authority
on theological questions. In 1520 he visited Rome to report on
the condition of affairs in Germany and to secure the condemna-
tion of Luther's heresy. He submitted his essay on the Primacy
of Peter to Leo X, was appointed Prothonotary Apostolic, and
was charged as papal legate, along with two other legates,
Aleander and Caracciolo, to carry out in Germany the provision
of the Bull Exsurge, Domine, which excommunicated Luther and
condemned his 41 theses. The execution of this mandate was be-
set with difiiculties on every side. Eck, through his Epistola ad
Carolum V (1521), admonished Emperor Charles to enforce the
papal ban. In the same year he went to Rome again, principally
at the behest of the Bavarian dukes, for whom he acted as coun-
selor in the ecclesiastical affairs, and made a third visit to Rome
in 1523. . . In the mean time he combated Lutheranism by his
letters and essays. Between the years 1522 and 1526 he published
eight voluminous treatises against Luther. Through his influence
the university of Ingolstadt retained its strictly Catholic atti-
tude, and strenuously opposed the rising Protestant institutions.
Eck had also a considerable share in organizing the "Catholic
Federation," founded June 5, 1524, by the leaders in Church and
State, for the purpose of safeguarding the ancient faith and en-
forcing the Edict of Worms. . . . When the Protestants at the
Diet of Augsburg in 1530 promulgated the Augsburg Confession,
defining their religious views, Eck headed the Catholic champions
upon whom the refutation of the articles in this confession de-
volved. Together with Wimpina and Cochlaeus he represented the
Catholic party at the conference (August 16) between Catholic
and Lutheran theologians relative to the Gonfessio and its Con-
futatio; and as a theologian he served on the subcommittee which
canvassed the result of the conference. ... In the negotiations.
relative to the Council of Trent, Eck was consulted by the Em-
peror, Charles V, as well as by the Pope, Paul III, and was
charged by the latter with preliminary work for the council.
At the religious disputation in Worms ( 1540) , Eck again appearedl
as the chief Catholic representative and debated with Melanch-

208 26. HAIL, DOCTOR MAETINUS !

then on the issues involved in the Augsburg Confession. The
discussion was continued during the Diet of Ratishon (1541), to
which, besides Eck, the emperor delegated as spokesmen on the
Catholic side Julius Pflug and Gropper. Eck maintained clearly
and decisively the Catholic position, and quite disapproved the
Eatisbon Interim. He also went on a mission to England and the
Netherlands in the interests of the Catholic cause. In 1529 the
bishops of Denmark invited Eck and Cochlaeus to the discussion
at Copenhagen; but neither appeared. Eck fully deserved the
prominence gained by him during the struggle against Protes-
tantism. . . .207)

Eck is one of the names with which Grisar conjures.
One of the strongest points he makes, when depicting Lu-
ther's "violent language," is by grouping and massing the
opinions which Luther has expressed about Eck. There are
terrible things that Luther said about Eck. He viewed him
as an emissary of the nether powers. He stood aghast at
the extraordinary cunning, shrewdness, and duplicity em-
ployed by this one man in his efforts to subvert the truth
that was brought nearer to him than to any other Catholic
theologian of his day. Eck seems to have studied Luther's
writings as Voltaire studied the Bible, to pillory and blas-
pheme them. He fought the young faith of the reborn
Christianity — the only true renaissance — of his day with
the strength and the malice of a demon. — Exit Ech.

26. Hail, Doctor Martinus!

"In those days when a German professor made his prepa-
rations for declaring before the whole world that the divine
right of the papacy is an error, the secular papacy suffered
a great political defeat," with these words Kolde 208) proposes
to bring together in one view the imperial election at Frank-
fort and Luther's debate at Leipzig. It is indeed a remark-
able coincidence. The election of Charles V as Emperor of
Germany thwarted for the time being all the greater political

207) Oathol. Encycl. V, 271 f.

208) I. c, I, 225.

26. HAIL, DOCTOR MARTINUS ! 209

plans of the Curia. The election was an assertion of the
political independence of Germany. It did not secure com-
plete liberty, but it served notice on Eome that the Germans
were no longer willing to submit to the rule of priests in
their secular afFairs, and to those extortionate practises "by
which the money of German dupes was obtained for the sup-
port of Roman luxury, licentiousness, and profligacy.

Hausrath calls the debate "the theological battle of Leip-
zig, which was destined to put an end to Italian despo-
tism." 209) This remark, too, points to a political effect of
Luther's spiritual duel. Is there any warrant for this view
in the historical situation in Germany in 1519? As far as
Luther is concerned, none. Luther's primary object at the
Leipzig Debate was not the assertion of human rights or the
achievement of political liberty; it cannot even be claimed
to have been his secondary object. These aspirations were
so far from his mind that in that very debate he professed
himself ready to accept the supremacy of the Pope on
grounds of tradition and custom, or as a human right. It
is true that during the debate he pointed with indignation
to the papal decretal which asserts for the Roman Pontiff
not only spiritual, but also secular supremacy, and declared
that he could not understand how men could stupidly bow
to such baseless assertions of a , false oracle, and that, for
such a long time. Nevertheless, the idea of making himself
a national liberator, a seevdar hero of Germany, was far
from him.

The Humanists of Germany, it is true, had watched the
course of Luther with absorbing interest ever since the publi-
cation of the !N^inety-five Theses. They studied this memo-
rable document at once with a view of ascertaining its
political significance. Under leaders like Ulrich von Hutten
and Francis von Sickingen the Humanists had begun to be
politically active. The defeat of the tax for the Turkish
war at the Diet of Augsburg is traced to their influence.
These men began, too, to look upon Luther as their cham-

209) I. u., I. 297.

DAU, LEIPZIG DEBATE. 14

210 26. HAIL, DOCTOE MARTINUS !

pion, and from their ranks there went up after ^the Leipzig'
Debate the joyous acclaim: Hail, Doctor Martinus! For
themselves, they had in their hearts cast aside all respect
for ecclesiastical authority, and since that authority seemed
backed by the Scriptures, also for God's Word; not a few
of them were agnostics. But they knew what a power the
Eoman Church exercised over the conscience of the common
people by its pretension of having been vested with supreme
authority by the Lord Himself. When Luther's arguments,
therefore, had demolished the fictitious Biblical supports of
this pretension, the Humanists saw at once that the super-
stitious regard with which the common people had looked up
to the papacy and the clergy was shattered, and Luther had
made the peasants, the artisans, the merchants throughout
Germany their allies.

They entered into communication with Luther, and Lu-
ther was suddenly made aware that he had secret supporters
in unlooked-for quarters. But if he ever was led into a false
belief by the overtures which he had received from these
humanistic knights, the illusion was soon shaken off.^l") The
Leipzig Debate was the Lord's battle fought with the Lord's
' weapons for the ends of the Lord. That the spiritual work
of Luther affected the secular relations of the men of his
time and of the centuries after him, no one who has studied
the history of the Reformation will deny. But these secular
effects of a spiritual cause are attendant upon the preaching-
of God's Word in any age and locality. We might call them
by-products of the Spiri,t. But small honor is accorded Lu-
ther by efforts to secularize the importance of his work. It
is possible to say many truthful things about Luther's love
of his country, his patriotism, his practical wisdom in the
every-day affairs of life, his love for learning and science,
the impulse which he gave to education, art, the proper pur-
suit of the trades and professions; but these things belong
to Luther's shadow: the man himself is greater than these
effects, good and precious though they are.

210) See Four Hundred Years, p. 316 ft.

'2G. HAIL, DOCTOR MARTINUS ! 211

A truer estimate of Luther is seen in a little brochure
-\vhich made its appearance towards the end of the year of
the Leipzig Debate at Nuernberg. Its title was "Defense
-and Christian Answer of an Honest Lover of Christian
Truth" {Schutzred' und chnstliche Antwort eines ehrharen
Liehhabers cJuistlicher Wahrheit). Its author was the city-
clerk of Nuernberg, Lazarus Spengler. This brochure un-
doubtedly grew out of the strivings for and against Luther
which were common everywhere in Germany after the Leip-
zig Debate. Not only the news which Luther's friends cir-
culated regarding the event, but still more the incessant
calumnies which his enemies were spreading about Luther
after the debate, caused the people to make inquiries and to
form opinions. These people the honest burgher of Nuern-
berg wished to serve by his "Schutzred'."

And now, what does he say? He, too, exclaims: Hail,
Doctor Martinus! But his reasons are different. He holds
that "Dr. Martin Luther's teaching should not be rejected
as unchristian, but should rather be regarded as Christian."
■"I leave it," he says, "to the judgment of every reasonable
and pious person to say whether Luther's teaching is not in
accordance with Christian order and reason." What Spong-
ier means by "reason" appears from the next clause : "I know
for a certainty — though I do not consider myself a highly
enlightened, scholarly, and accomplished person — that as
long as I live there has been no teaching and preaching that
has entered into my reason with such force as Luther's; nor
have I learned more from anybody what meets my conception
of Christian order than from Luther and those who follow
him." He prays God for grace to order his life in accordance
with this excellent instruction, for then he hopes to appear
as a true Christian in God's sight, though he might he de-
cried as a heretic by those who persecute Luther and his
teaching.

Ulrich von Hutten is said to have exclaimed when he
heard of Luther's attack on the papacy: "These are great
times to live in!" Speagler says the same thing: "I have

212 26. HAIL, DOCTOE MAETINUS !

heard from many excellent, scholarly persons in prominent
positions, both in the clergy and in secular estates, that they
have thanked God because they lived to hear Luther and his
teaching." He declares: "In Doctor Luther God has raised
up a Daniel from among the people to open our blind eyes,
to chase away by means of the Holy Scriptures the scruples
and errors of troubled consciences, and to show us the right,
straight way to Christ, the only Eock of our salvation." This
small brochure of a simple layman reveals in every sentence
the glow and candor of a heart that has come to rest in its
Bible and its Christ by Luther's teaching. The brochure had
to be reprinted five times within one year.211)

With Lazarus Spengler we join in the acclaim: Hail,
Doctor Martinus! The period in Luther's life which we
have reviewed shows us no perfect Luther. Luther never
was perfect, but at this period he is more imperfect than at
other times. There is timid groping and wavering observable
in him. He has not found his true bearings. But he is
walking in the right direction, and has his eye fixed on the
eternal cynosure of truth and grace, the Redeemer and His
Gospel. Hail, Doctor Martinus!

211) Kolde, I.e., I, 232 f.

APPENDIX.

I. Theses against the Scholastic Theology.

Debated at Wittenberg, September 4, 1517.

1. To say that Augustine bas gone too far in what he has said
against heretics amounts to saying that Augustine is a liar nearly
all the time. — Against common assertions.

2. It also amounts to giving' the Pelagians and all heretics
cause for triumph, yea, to conceding them the victory.

3. Moreover, it is tantamount to surrendering the authority of
all teachers of the Church to ridicule.

4. Accordingly, it is the truth that man, having become a cor-
rupt tree, can only will and do what is evil.

5. It is false that free desire is efficient in both directions
(viz., towards the good- as well as the evil) ; yea, it is not free
at all, but captive. — Against the common opinion.

6. It is false that the will can by nature regulate itself in
accordance with the right dictate of reason. — Against Scotus
and Gabriel.

7. On the contrary, without the grace of God the will neces-
sarily produces an action that is out of harmony (with the right
dictate of reason ) , and evil.

8. It does not follow, however, that the will is by nature evil,
that is, that by nature it is of evil, as the Manicheans teach.

9. But the will is by nature and unavoidably of an evil and
perverted quality.

10. It is admitted that the will is not free to turn toward any
good that is proposed. — Against Scotus and Gabriel.

11. Nor is it in its power to will, or not to will, anything that
is proposed.

12. To say this is not to contradict Augustine's dictum:
"Nothing is so in the power of the will as will itself."

13. It is quite absurd to conclude: Erring man can love
a creature above everything ; therefore he can so love God. —
Against Scotus and Gabriel.

14. It is not to be wondered at that he can govern himself
according to the erring, but not according to the right, dictate
of reason.

15. Yea, it is peculiar to him to be governed only in accordance
with the erring, and not the right, dictate of reason.

214 I- THESES AGAIXST THE SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY.

16. We ougM rather to draw this conclusion: Erring man
■can love the creature; therefore it is impossible for him to
love God.

17. Man cannot by nature will that God be God; he would
rather will that he be God, and that God be not God.

18. The phrase: Loving God above all things, is a fiction, just
like the chimera.212) Against the almost universal opinion.

19. Nor is the argument valid which Sootus advances, by
referring to a brave citizen who loves his country more than
liimself.

20. An act friendly to God cannot be ascribed to nature, but
must be ascribed to prevenient grace. — Against Gabriel.

21. In [man's] nature there are only acts of desire hostile
to God.

22. Every act of desire against God is evil, and spiritual
fornication.

23. Nor is it true that the act of desire can be corrected by
the virtue of hope. — Against Gabriel.

24. For hope is not contrary to love, which alone seeks and
■wills what belongs to God.

25. Hope does not spring from merit, but from suffering, which
annuls merit. — Against the customary view of many.

26. An act friendly to God is not the most perfect manner of
doing what man can do, nor is it the most perfect way for quali-
fying for [the reception of] the grace of God, or the way to turn
to God and to approach Him.

27. But it is an act of a person whose conversion is already
accomplished; in point of time and in its nature it is later than
[the reception of] grace.

28. To say that in such passages as Zech. 1, 3: "Turn ye unto
Me, and I will turn unto you" ; Jas. 4, 8 : "Draw nigh unto God,
and He will draw nigh unto you"; Matt. 7, 7: "Seek, and ye
shall find" ; Jer. 29, 13 : "Ye shall seek Me, and find Me" ; and
in similar texts, one thing must be ascribed to nature and the
other to grace, is nothing else than to set up the claim of the
Pelagians.

29. The best and infallible preparation, and the only qualifica-
tion for grace, is the eternal election and predestination of God.

30. On the part of man, however, nothing precedes grace except
man's incapacity, yea, his rebellion against grace.

31. It is the emptiest fiction to say that the statement: An
elect person cannot be damned, is true, if you separate (m sensu

212) The chimera was a fabulous monster, the fore part of which
was a lion, wliile the torso was a goat, breathing Are, and tlie rear
part, a dragon.

I. THESES AQAtXST THE SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY. 215

diviso) , but not, if you combine {in sensu composito), the con-
cepts.213) — Against the scholastics.

32. Just as little truth is yielded by the statement: Election
is necessary by a necessity of consequence, but not by a necessity
of the consequent.214)

33. It is likewise false to say that, -when man does what he
is able to do, he removes the obstacles to grace. — Against some.

34. To sum up, [human] nature has neither a right dictate of
reason nor a good will.

35. It is not true that insurmountable ignorance entirely
excuses a person [who has committed sin]. — Against all the
scholastics.

_ 36. For ignorance which knows nothing of God, nor of man,
nor what are good works, is by its nature in all cases insur-
mountable.

37. Nature even boasts and necessarily becomes uplifted [with
pride] within over every good which in appearance and outwardly
is good.

38. There is no moral virtue that is free from pride or melan-
choly, that is, from sin.

39. We are, from beginning to end, not masters of our actions,
but slaves. — Against the philosophers.

40. We are not justified by accomplishing righteous acts, but.
we accomplish righteous acts after we have been justified. —
Against the philosophers.

41. Nearly the entire Ethics of Aristotle is the worst enemy of
grace. — Against the scholastics.

42. It is an error that Aristotle's opinion of l^appiness does not
contradict Christian doctrine. — Against the Ethics.

43. It is an error to contend -that no one becomes a theologian
without Aristotle. — Against the common talk.

44. Yea, no one becomes a theologian unless he becomes one
without Aristotle.

45. To say that a theologian who is not a logician is a mon-
strous heretic is a monstrous and heretical statement. — Against
the common talk.

213) This scholastic quibble is tbus illustrated by Dr. Hoppe, in
the St. Louis Edition of Luther's Works : "The statement : The sleep-
ing person can wake, is correct in sensu diviso, that is, he can both
sleep and wake, however, at different times. But it is wrong in sensu
composito ; for a person sleeping cannot be awake at the same time.
(XVIII, 22.)

214) A i^eeessity of consequence inecessitas conseguentiae) Is ex-
pressed by the statement : Whatever God wills, must be accomplished.
Hence, a person elected by God must necessarily be saved. A necessity
of the consequent (necessitas consequentis) would be contained in the
statement : This very person had to be elected. The statement would
be false; for no such necessity exists, (Hoppe, I.e.)

216 I- THESES AGAINST THE SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY.

46. It is in vain to invent a logic of faitli; this is a suppo-
sition wliicli is brought about by avoiding correct terms and
definitions. — Against the modern logicians.

47. In statements regarding divine matters no syllogism can
stand. Against the Cardinal of Cambray ( Pierre d'Ailly ) .

48. However, it does not for that reason follow that the truth
of the article of the Trinity contradicts syllogistic statements. • —
Against the same and the Cardinal of Cambray.

49. If a syllogism regarding divine matters could stand, the
article of the Trinity could be known, and would not have to be
believed.

50. To sum up, all of Aristotle is related to theology as dark-
ness to light. — Against the scholastics. ,

51. There is strong reason for doubt whether the Latin fathers
have the true understanding of Aristotle.

52. It would have been better for the Church if Porphyry with
his Universalia, had never been born for theologians.

53. The current commentaries on Aristotle seem to assume as
proved what is first to be proved.

54. In order that an act may be meritorious, it is necessary
that grace be present, or its presence is vain. — Against Gabriel.

55. The grace of God is never present as an idle thing, but it
is a living, active, and operative Spirit; and not even by the
unlimited omnipotence of God can there be produced an act
friendly to God, without the presence of the grace of God. —
Against Gabriel.

56. God cannot accept any person without the justifying grace
of God. — Against Occam.

57. This statement is dangerous: The Law commands that the
fulfilment of the commandment take place in the grace of God. —
Against the Cardinal and Gabriel.

58. From this statement it would follow that "to possess the
grace of God" is a new demand beyond the Law.

59. It would follow from the same statement that the fulfil-
ment of the Law can be accomplished without the grace of God.

60. It would likewise follow that the grace of God would
become even more hateful than the Law.

61. We cannot draw this conclusion: The Law must be kept
and fulfilled in the grace of God. — Against Gabriel.

62. Consequently, the person who is without the grace of God
sins continually by not killing, not committing adultery, not
stealing.

63. On the other hand, this follows: he sins by not fulfilling
the Law spiritually.

64. A person does not kill, commit adultery, steal, spiritually,
when he is free from anger or evil lust.

I. THESKS AGAINST THE SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY. 217

65. Without the grace of God it is impossible not to have
anger or evil lust, so much so, that even under grace this is not
suflScient for a perfect fulfilment of the Law.

66. Not to kill, not to commit adultery, etc., in very act and
outwardly, is a righteousness of hypocrites. .

67. It is hy the grace of God that a person has no evil lust
nor anger.

68. Accordingly, it is impossible, without the grace of God, to
fulfil the Law in any manner.

69. Yea, by nature, without the grace of God, the Law is only
the more grievously broken.

70. Although the Law is good, it necessarily becomes evil to
the natural will [of man].

71. The Law and the will [of man], without the grace of God,
are two irreconcilable opposites.

72. What the Law wills the will [of man] in every instance
does not will, unless the person, from fear or love, pretends that
he wills.

73. The Law is a driver to the will, which is conquered only by
"the Child that is born unto us," Is. 9, 6.

74. The Law makes sin exceedingly sinful, Rom. 7, 13 ; for it
incites and withdraws the will from itself.

75. However, the grace of God makes the righteousness by
Jesus Christ exceedingly righteous; for it causes a person not to
find any pleasure in the Law.

76. Every work of the Law, without the grace of God, appears
good outwardly, but inwardly it is sin. — Against the scholastics.

77. Without the grace of God the will is always turned away
from, while the hand is turned toward, the Law of God.

78. The will which, without the grace of God, is turned toward
the Law is so turned only in view of its own profit.

79. Cursed are all who work the works of the Law.

80. Blessed are all who work the works of grace.

81. The chapter "Falsfs" de poenit., diss. 5., if not misunder-
stood, affirms that works without the grace of God are not good.

82. Not only the ceremonial law is that Law which is not
good, or those commandments according to which we do not
live ; — Against many teachers.

83. But also the very Ten Commandments, and everything
that may be taught or prescribed within or without.

84. The good Law, and that in which we live, is the love of
God, which by the Holy Spirit is shed abroad in our hearts.

85. The will of every man would rather, if it were possible,
that there be no Law, and that he might be entirely free.

86. The will of every man hates to have a law laid upon him,,
or wishes merely from self-love that a, law be imposed on him.

218 II- THESES FOE LUTHEE'S DEBATE AT HEIDELBERG.

87. Since the Law is good, the will [of man], which is hostile
to it, cannot be good.

88. Hence it is plain and manifest that eveiy natural will is
unrighteous and evil.

89. Grace is necessary as a mediator to reconcile the Law to
the will.

90. The grace of God is bestowed for the purpose of directing
the will, lest it err even in the love of God. — Against Gabriel.

91. It is not bestowed for the purpose of bringing about acts
[of love] more frequently and more easily, but because, without it,
no acts of love whatever are achieved. — Against Gabriel.

92. The argument cannot be refuted, viz., that love is super-
fluous, if man, by nature, is able to perform an act friendly to
God. — Against Gabriel.

93. It is a subtile evil to say that enjoying and using some-
thing is the same act. — Against Occam.

94. Likewise, to say that the love of God can coexist even with
violent love of a creature.

95. To love God is to hate oneself, and to know not anything
besides God.

96. We are bound to conform our willing entirely to the will
of God. — Against the Cardinal.

97. We must will, not only what God would have us will, but,
in general, everything that God wills. (XVIII, 19 — 27.)

II. Theses for Luther's Debate at Heidelberg,
April 26, 1518.

Theses op Theologicai, Import.

Wholly distrusting myself, in accordance with the counsel of
the Holy Ghost in Prov. 3, 5 : "Lean not unto thine own under-
standing," I submit to all who wish to be present the following
unusual propositions, iij order that it laay be made clear whether
they have been properly or improperly drawn from the holy
apostle Paul, that elect vessel and instrument of Christ, and from
his faithful expositor, Augustine: —

1. The Law of God, the most salutary rule of life, cannot
advance man to righteousness, but is rather a hindrance to him.

2. Much less can man be advanced to righteousness by such
works as he does habitually and aided by the rule of his natural
reason.

3. Although the works of men always shine and appear good,
yet it is probable that they are mortal sins.

4. Although the works of God are always unseemly and appear
poor, they are in reality of immortal merit.

II. THESES FOR LUTIIEK'S DEBATE AT HEIDELBERG. 218

5. When we call such works of men as seem good mortal sins,
we do not mean that they are crimes.

6. Works of God that are performed hy men do not represent
merits in the sense that they are without sin.

7. The works of the righteous would be mortal sins, if the
righteous themselves, in the true fear of God, did not so
regard them.

S. Much more are those works mortal sins which men do
without the fear of God, in their wicked security.

9. To say that works done without Christ are dead works, but
not mortal sins, seems a dangerous digression from the fear of God.

10. Yea, it is difficult to see how any work can be a dead work
without being a noxious and mortal sin.

11. A person cannot avoid presumption nor cherish true hope
unless in every work that he does he dread the judgment of
condemnation.

12. Sins are truly venial in the sight of God when they are
dreaded by men as mortal sins.

13. Free will after the fall is merely nominal, and when-
a person does by his free will what is in his power, he commits
mortal sin.

14. In regard to good works free will in man after the fall has
a sort of passive ability, but in regard to evil works it operates
always by an active ability.

15. Even in the state of innocence man could not continue by
an active, but only by a passive ability, not to say anything about
his being able to make progress in good works.

16. A person imagining that he can attain to grace by doing
his part increases his sin and becomes doubly guilty.

17. To say this does not mean to consign men to despair, but
to urge them on in their efforts to humble themselves and to
seek the grace of Christ.—

18. It is certain that man must wholly despair of himself
before he is capable of obtaining the grace of Christ.

19. Not he is properly called a theologian who imagines that
he has comprehended the incomprehensible things of God by
means of the things that are made;

20. But he who comprehends the visible and inferior things of
God, as he views them when bearing the cross and in tribulation.

21. A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil, but
a theologian of the cross calls things by their proper name.

22. The wisdom which regards the invisible things of God as
comprehensible by means of the creatures makes a person puffed
up, blind, and hard.

23. The Law wo^ks wrath [shows the wrath of God], slays,
curses, pronounces guilty, judges and condemns all those who are
not in Christ.

220 II- THESES FOE LUTHEB'S DEBATE AT HEIDELBERG.

24. Still the aforementioned, wisdom is not evil, nor must
a person flee from the Law; but without the theology of the
cross these things are fearfully misused.

25. Not he is righteous who works vigorously, but he who,
without works, abounds in faith in Christ.

26. The Law says : Do this; but it is never done. Grace says:
Believe in Him, and all is done.

27. To speak correctly we should call that which Christ does
something efficient, and what we do something effected, also that
our works are pleasing to God because they are effected by grace "
which works efficiently in us.

28. The love of God does not find, but works, in us what is
worthy of being loved; the love of man springs from something
which a person regards as worth loving.

Theses op Philosophical Import.

29. He who would without danger pursue philosophy by study-
ing Aristotle necessarily must first become a fool altogether
in Christ.

30. As only a married person rightly employs the evil of carnal
concupiscence, so no one but [one who has thus become] a fool,
that is, a Christian, rightly studies philosophy.

31. It was easy for Aristotle to imagine that the world is
eternal, because in his opinion the soul of man is mortal.

32. After assuming that there are as many substantial forms as
there are composite objects, the further assumption should neces-
sarily have been made that there are as many matters.

33. Nothing is produced by necessity from any object in the
world, but all that is produced in a natural way is necessarily
produced from matter.

34. If Aristotle had known the unlimited poWer of God, he
would have asserted that it is impossible that matter could
«xist by itself.

35. Aristotle holds that actually no object is infinite; but
potentially and substantially all composite objects are so.

36. It is unbecoming in Aristotle to criticize and ridicule the
philosophy of Plato's ideas, for it is better than his own.

37. In an ingenious manner Pythagoras contends for a numer-
ical principle in matter, but there is greater geniality in Plato's
communion of ideas.

38. Aristotle's contention against Parmenides's principle of
"one" — if you will pardon a Christian for saying this — is
a beating of the air.

39. Apparently positing something that is infinite in form,
Anaxagoras is the best of philosophers, Aristotle notwithstanding.

40. In Aristotle's view privation, matter, form, movable things,
immovable things, activity, ability, etc., seem to be identical.

III. SITMMAKT OF OBELISKS AND ASTERISKS. 221

III. Summary of Eck's Obelisks and Luther's
Asterisks.

Introdtjction. — With a superior air Eck declares- that he
■will not enter into a learned discussion of Luther's Theses accord-
ing to the rules of scholastic argument, and will not have recourse
to any books, but will simply jot down his exceptions as they
occur to him on the spur of the moment. (One asks involuntarily
upon reading this statement: Why such a solemn preface to
a merely casual performance of a literary man? Was the per-
formance really casual Jind without design? Is not Eck addressing
himself to an invisible audience with these words?) Luther was
not deceived by this preamble; he regards it as the conceited
utterance of a braggart. Glancing over the Obelisks, Luther
notes at once that Eck has not been true to his lofty declaration
at the start; for all his exceptions are based, not on Scripture,
the orthodox fathers, or the creedal statements of the Church, but
on the arbitrary definitions and dreams of the Schoolmen.

Eck has found fault with Luther's first thesis: that daily
repentance is a characteristic of the members of the kingdom of
heaven. He argues that a person can be a member of that king-
dom without going to confession and doing penance every day.
This exception flowed either from ignorance or sophistry, and
Luther reminds Eck that he is speaking of that repentance in
which a sinner feels sorry for his sins and turns to Christ for
forgiveness, not of the Roman Sacrament of Penitence, in which
a person recounts his faults to a priest, and is then absolved and
told what works of satisfaction he is to perform. Luther had, in
his second thesis, declined the very error into which Eck had
fallen. He challenges Eck to produce a single member of Christ's
kingdom who does not practise daily repentance.

1. Obelisk. — In his third thesis Luther had declared the
repentance of the heart worthless unless it is shown by manifest
acts in the mortification of the flesh. Eck digs his first dagger
into this statement, and argues that the heart is the seat of the
will, which governs all actions as a king rules his kingdom ; hence,
Christ regards the will or intention rather than the deed ; e. g., He
praised the mite of the widow in preference to the munificence of
the wealthy. Luther thinks this objection of his critic is a des-
perate effort to say something when one has nothing to say.
He asserts that he had not denied that the inward repentance
is a great thing. It is great, very great. What Luther had
denied is that such repentance can be in the heart without any-
body's finding it out. It is idle, he says, to speak of the will
by itself, aside from its practical manifestations. Moreover, we
must not forget that man's will is depraved ; it rules in the heart
like a harlot in her brothel.

222 III- SUMMARY OF OBELISKS AND ASTERISKS.

2. Obelisk. — This stabs Luther's fifth thesis: that the Pope-
cannot and will not remit any penalties or fines except such as
he or the canons, that is, the rules of the Church, have arbitrarily
fixed for certain trespasses. This assertion Eck declared "plainly
erroneous"; for the penalties and fines laid down in the peni-
tential canons are either in addition to the penalties which God
inflicts, — in that case they would prove a snare to the soul, - — or
they are merely interpretations of the divine penalties. The-
latter view Eck declares correct and charges Luther with not
having seen this. But this view being correct, he argues that
the Pope, by remitting the canonical fines, does indeed remit some-
penalties for sins. Moreover, if Luther's view were correct, the
Roman Sacrament of Penitence would be stripped of all dignity.
Now, this sacrament rests on the Power of the Keys, that is, on
the authority of the Church to remit or retain sins. Since this
power is applied whenever people go to confession, there must be
a necessary effect; for they are taking part in a sacrament of
the New Testament, which always efl'ects what it signifies, and
thereby difi'ers from the sacraments of the Old Testament. —
Luther professes his astonishment at this discovery of a smart
scholastic. He denies, however, that he has made, or thought of,
any such distinction as Eck imagines, ins., between primary
punishments, imposed by God, and secondary, or additional
punishments, imposed by the Church and the Pope. He spurns
the notion that God imposes any fines or penalties on a penitent
sinner, and appeals to Scripture, which shows that God is satis-
fied when the sinner has been brought to a point where he hates
sin and condemns himself for having sinned. Therefore the-
canons cannot interpret the penalties which God has fixed, for
such penalties do not exist. Luther acknowledges that the Church
imposes fines on the penitent, and thinks these should be borne out
of reverence for the Ofiice of the Keys and as a salutary discipline
to the unruly flesh. They are no snare to the conscience, except
when a person imagines that by submitting to these penances he is
atoning to God for his sins. But supposing even these canonical
fines are felt as a burden or snare, is not the entire Law of God
declared to be an unbearable yoke? However, Luthei; thinks it
would perhaps be better if these penances were abolished because
they are misinterpreted. Formerly — and here Luther reminds-
Eck that he referred to this custom in his twelfth thesis — no-
penances were imposed and executed after, but only before, abso-
lution. But Luther does not wish to speak conclusively on this
point; he has merely invited discussion of this matter. Eck's
reference to the eflScacy of a sacrament Luther regards as a
depreciation of the true power of a sacrament. Is this really
something of moment to release people from a temporal church

III. SUMMARY OF OBELISKS AND ASTERISKS. 223

fine? Did God ordain His sacraments for such a paltry purpose?
But to entertain such a notion is not Eck's ■worst fault; he evi-
dently thinks that sacraments are efficacious by the mere per-
formance of certain prescribed acts. Luther tells Eek that at
this point he has merely repeated the opinions of Peter Lombard
and Hugo St. Victor, and has entirely forgotten his lofty promise
in the preface. But he is wrong, together with his scholastic
oracles : not the sacrament per se, but faith in the sacrament is
what justifies. This faith must be present by divine grace when
a person uses the sacrament, or his whole act becomes a farce and
a delusion. What Eck teaches in this Obelisk is not Bohemian,
but hellish poison. — As to the distinction between the sacra-
ments of the Old and those of the New Testament, these differ
not in point of efficacy, but as regards the object for which they
were ordained. All the rites of the Old Testament must here be
considered, such as the ordinances of days and feasts, of foods,
clothing, fasts, etc. ; they were all designed as tests of obedience,
and could not justify, while those of the New Testament convey
the gift of that righteousness which Christ has procured. That
is the reason, too, why they are fewer in number and easier of
execution.

Referring to Luther's sixth thesis: that the Pope cannot
absolve from guilt except by declaring the person absolved by God,
Eck had drawn this inference: Since the Pope cannot absolve
from guilt, he must certainly release from punishment; for he
surely releases from something. In reply Luther says that he
had not inserted this thesis to express a belief of his own, but
to draw out others, and that he intends to explain his view on
this point more fully in his forthcoming Exposition of the
Ninety-five Theses. Meanwhile he asks Eck to reflect in what
a dilemma he has placed himself: he has argued that, to be
eflScacious, the sacraments must release from punishment. But
it is plain that in the sacrament God releases the sinner from
guilt, and this is what the priest must declare. Eck, therefore,
is the worst of all heretics if he sets aside this efficacy of the
sacraments, and talks only of a remission of church fines.

3. Obelisk. — In his 10th and 11th thesis Luther had declared
that the priests act wickedly when, in ministering to the dying,
they commute the canonical penances for the pains of purgatory.
Such teaching must be tares which the devil has sown among the
wheat while men slept. Eck is horrified at this malicious slander
of the priests and bishops. If, as Luther holds, the Pope absolves
from guilt by declaring a person absolved by God, in other words,
if the Pope only confirms what a higher power has decided, —
though Eck considers this a, silly proceeding ! — why cannot the
priests reserve for purgatory the penalties which the dying should

224 III- SUIIMABY OF OBELISKS AND ASTERISKS.

have endured here? Coining a new word, Eck says, these purga-
torial sufferings are not satisfactions, but satispassions for guilt.
By this thoughtful teaching the priests have shown themselves
very much awake ( to their pecuniary interests ? ) , much more so
than Luther. Moreover, does not Luther know that, according to
ecclesiastical law, persons who have died excommunicate may he
absolved? Luther answers this criticism by reminding Eck that
he is playing fast and loose with him: what he now calls silly
he had before declared a pious act; for he had said that by pub-
lishing the penitential canons the Pope had interpreted, or
declared, the punishments which God imposes. Is the Pope not
just as much above God by interpreting Him — as Eck had
said — as he would be by repeating Him — as Luther had said ?
And really, in his own heart and among theologians of his ilk Eck
does put the Pope above God and deems himself quite orthodox
for doing so; but when he debates with Luther, that which he
otherwise holds as truth forthwith becomes a falsehood, because
it suits Eck'a purpose to declare so. However, this is not to the
point. The correct view is that the higher power has obligated
itself to enforce the acts of the lower, for Christ has assured His
disciples that what they bind or loose on earth shall be bound
or loosed in heaven. Moreover, it is a common saying in the
Church that, when ministering to the dying, every priest is to that
person the Pope. Now, to the Pope has been reserved the right
of plenary absolution. If the priest is equal to the Pope (in the
hour of death, why does he not remit all punishment? Why does
he reserve some for purgatory? The argument that divine equity
does not permit this is invalid; for in that case the Pope would
be doing what is contrary to divine equity. — Eck's new phrase
"satispassion" makes Luther smile. He suggests a still better
substitute: every peasant knows that a punishment can only
be borne by willingness to submit to it. Hence willingness to
suffer may be substituted for actual suffering, or satisvolition
can be declared equivalent to satisfaction. Why not? As to the
law regarding persons who have died excommunicate and yet
. may be absolved, Eck has, in the first place, totally misunderstood
the scope of this provision: it aims only at the wiping out of
a temporal and civil blemish, the removal of ecclesiastical dis-
honor. In the second place, it is puerile to argue that because
a person who has died in disgrace with, the authorities of the
Church can be restored to churchly honors, therefore the priests
have the right to commute temporal for purgatorial punishments.
Eck makes himself ridiculous by treating the remission of sins
as identical with ecclesiastical restoration.

4. Obelisk. — Eck. questions the statement in Luther's
13th thesis, that no law can reach a dead person. Luther
replies that he is willing to wait until Eck jiroves the contrary.

III. SUltMAKV OF OBELISKS AND ASTERISKS. 225

•1. Obelisk. — Luther had said in his 14th thesis that the
consciousness of their imperfection malies men afraid to die.
Eclc declares this statement silly, because a baptized child, blessed
with the imputed righteousness of Christ, is less perfect in works
of love than an adult, and yet death has no terrors for such
a child. Therefore the question of a person's perfection or imper-
fection has nothing to do with purgatory, which is related only
to the sins for which no satisfaction had been rendered. — .Luther
does not dispute the imputed righteousness of a child, "but he
asks Eck to explain why David, an adult in the state of grace,
prays: "Enter not into judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy
sight no man living shall be justified," Ps. 143, 2. The dying child
suffers less than an adult because it has not the adult's under-
standing of what is happening in death. The dying agonies of
an adult arise from his greater knowledge and experience.
Eck's argument, if rightly worked out, really ought to yield
a different conclusion, to wit : If a child whose works of love are
small in number does not taste the bitterness of death, an i^dult
in the state of grace, who has practised the law of love all his
life, ought not to feel the terrors of death at all. As to the
claim that a child is spiritually inferior to an adult, is that
really so? Christ bids us become like these little ones if we wish
to enter the kingdom of heaven. Matt. 18, 3. Eck is muddling
the point at issue. Lastly, there is no necessity for demanding
satisfactions to be rendered after death, because, as already stated,
any priest ministering to a dying person has the power to pro-
nounce plenary absolution, just as if he were the Pope. Yea, if
a priest cannot be secured, the mere wish of the dying to have
a priest attend him suffices to secure absolution for him. What
satisfaction, then, remains to be rendered in purgatory?

6. Obexisk. — Luther had said in his 16th thesis that hell,
purgatory, and heaven seemed to differ in the same way as
despair, near despair, and happiness. Eck declares this "an
impudent thesis." For after their separation from the body the
friends of God, starting on their way to purgatory, know that
they will be saved, however, as by fire, which will purify them.
Moreover, it is likely that they associate with the angels. How,
then, can they be visited with near despair, which is the lot only
of the wicked? — How do they know that they will be saved? asks
Luther. "Because Eck says so." But there are theologians who
maintain that the souls in purgatory are detained till Judgment
Day. Others confess that they do not know whether they will
be saved or not. Their association with the angels is a mere
assumption. It smells strongly after Aristotle. Eck has no
knowledge of what despair is, which afflicts even godly persons
in a state of grace. Still he talks like an oracle of the sun-god

DAUj LEIPZIG DEBATE. jg

226 III. SUMMAEY OF OBELISKS AND ASTEEISKS.

from a tripod. The theologians of the Roman Church teach
that the pains of purgatory are nearly akin to those of hell.
Now, the state in hell is a state of despair. . Therefore the state
in purgatory must be a state of near despair. What Luther
wished to have established by a discussion of his 16th thesis is,
whether this, is so.

7. Obelisk. — Eck declares Luther's 17th thesis not unlike
the preceding one. Luther had said that it seemed to him that
love must increase in the souls in purgatory, in order that their
horror may be lessened. Eck decrees: What the fall was to the
angels, that death is to men. "In the place where the tree falleth,
there shall it be," Eccl. 11,3, regardless of merit or demerit. —
Luther asks Eck whether he wants to be laughed at for the
constant self-contradictions in which he involves himself. The
text which he quotes has been used by the Bohemian Picards to
prove that there is no purgatory. To escape being classed with
them, Eck refers it to death, which happens alike to all. What
he really wants to prove by it is that in purgatory — which he
strenuously maintains — there is no improvement of the spiritual

. condition of souls. Now Gregory has maintained that venial
sins are purged in purgatory. Eck himself has declared thai
satisfactions are rendered in purgatory. How can he hold this
view and yet decline the other, that there is an improvement
going on in purgatorjr ? - If he is right in his first claim, that the
souls in purgatory fill up the measure of their unfulfilled tasks
on earth, he must accept the evident conclusion that these souls
are constantly becoming better and their merits are increased.
What Eck has said about the death of men being a counterpart
of the fall of the angels he has from John of Damascus. But he
has misapplied the saying. There are instances of souls that have
returned to their bodies, as in the case of Lazarus. Where had
they been in the interim? Was their death like the fall of the
angels? In such mysterious matters men should be careful not
to assume such cocksureness.

8. Obelisk. — This is directed against Luther's 18th thesis :
that it cannot be proved either by sound reasoning or Scripture
that the souls in purgatory are not working out merits and
increasing in love. (Luther, of course, does not state his own
belief in this thesis, but merely follows out to a just conclusion
the teaching of the Schoolmen.) Eck finds in this thesis the
same audacity as in the preceding. It is a perversion of the
end of all teaching, of repentance, of everything. The souls
are placed in purgatory, not to accumulate merit, but to expiate
wrongs. Love, which is the fulfilment of the Law, is earned while
a person is living, according to 2 Cor. 5, 10, which declares that
every one shall be rewarded according to the things done in the

III. SUMMARY OP OBELISKS A>;D ASTERISKS. 2'21

body; otherwise the apostle should have added: or in purga-
tory. — Luther is disgusted ad nauseam with the endless rehash of
scholastic opinions which Eck is serving him. Eck is so blind that
he does not see that he is arguing on Luther's side. Luther has
not stated as his own belief that there is an opportunity in
purgatory for gaining rewards, but he argues that the scholastic
theologians are bound to set up that claim, in order to justify
the existence of purgatory. If this is perverting the end of their
theology, Luther hopes that God will give him the grace to pervert
not only the end, but also the beginning and middle of that
theology. Eck"s reference to 2 Cor. 5, 10 Luther declares a plain
perversion of the text, which relates to what is to happen at the
final judgment, not in purgatory or at a person's death.

9. Obelisk. — Against a prevalent view Luther had asserted
in his 19th thesis that there is no proof that the souls in purga-
tory are certain of their future bliss, at least not all of them,
even though all men should claim this to be a fact. Eck claims
that he has already proved in previous remarks that this thesis is
false. He adds that the souls in purgatory know more than we
who are still in the flesh : they know that they are dead, that they
are not in despair, that they are not in communion with God,
hence, that they are in purgatory. Knowing all this, they know
that they belong in the number of those who will be saved. ■ —
"May the kind Jesus have mercy on you, Eck!" Luther exclaims;
for he sees in this argument nothing but the stock-in-trade
assertions of the Schoolmen, while Luther has asked for certain
proof. Luther is willing to admit the possibility of a certainty
of salvation in purgatory, but holds that it must be one of which
the souls are not conscious. Their case, then, would resemble
that of an afflicted person who grieves over his unbelief, because
he cannot see and feel his faith, while an outsider readily perceives
that the person is a believer, for unbelievers do not bewail
their unbelief.

10. Obelisk. — In his 20th thesis, in which he draws the
conclusion from the three preceding, Luther had explained what he
understands by the plenary absolution of the Pope: he can
absolve only from such penalties as he himself has imposed.
Eck denies this, and again refers to the Power of the Keys which
the priest employs in absolution. If Luther were right, this
"noble sacrament of the New Law" would be a rather windy
ordinance. — Luther sees in this iteration of a former argument
of Eck the fidelity of a dog to his master: yhat the School-
men have praised or condemned Eck must praise or condemn, even
though he should have to repeat himself over and over again.
And what a sorry honor does he vindicate for the Sacrament of
Penitence! Its glory, according to Eck, consists in this, that

228 in. SUMMABY OF OBELISKS AND ASTEKISKS.

it releases from a miserable church-flne, not, from the sense of
guilt and the anger of God. Nor are these church-fines altogether
remitted, else why should there be a purgatory? Alas! the
ancient heathen used to cheer their dying in the hour of departure,
but Christians are by their theologians filled with the most gloomy
thoughts at the approach of death.

11. Obelisk. — Against Luther's 25th thesis, in which the
authority of the Pope is said to be the same in kind as that which
any bishop exercises in his diocese or any curate in his parish,
Eck bursts forth with the cry : "A frivolous proposition !
It upsets the entire government of the Church and could be dis-
proved with many arguments." — Luther perceivc^s that Eck has
only been startled by Luther's seeming denial of the supremacy
of the Pope, while all that Luther could possibly want to say in
.this connection is, that the Pope in his way can do no more for
souls in purgatory than a bishop or a parish priest in theirs:
each can pray for them. ]^ck has pounced upon this thesis for
the purpose of stirring up hatred against Luther, and has thus
revealed his malicious heart.

12. Obelisk. — In his 26th thesis Luther had praised the
practise of the Pope in commending the souls of the departed to
the prayers of Christians, instead of exercising the Power of the
Keys in their behalf. IJck charges Luther with ignorance of
the meaning of 'the "suffrages," that is, of the intercessory prayers
which Christians oiTer for one another, because Luther has not
read the commentaries, which teach that the suffrages do not lessen,
but increase. — Luther admits that this kind of suffrages has been
a mystery to him; that is why he has sought enlightenment by
publishing his theses and inviting a general discussion. ^ Neither
does he understand Eck's words: "They do not lessen, but
increase." Lessen what? Increase what? As to commentaries,
he has read only Biel; but he has explained nothing to Luther;
neither has Eck. But even if they did, would they not offend
against a principle which Eck had uttered before, vi^., that
a lesser authority cannot act as interpreter for a higher, in this
case, for the Pope?

13. Orklisk. — This is directed against the 28th thesis of
Luther, which Eck calls "bold, and apt to cause tumult, sedition,
and schism in the Church of God, without increasing love."

Luther wonders how this charge of Eck will increase love;
for it cannot but produce enmity against Luther, because Luther
has touched the greed of priests. Many before him have written
about this and other evils in the Church, such as the sale of
bishopries, the scandalous living of the Popes without causing
revolutions and schisms; why must his paltry few theses have
this effect? Is not Eck perhaps hired to say such malicious

III. SUMMARY OF OBELISKS AND ASTERISKS. 229

things? Or has he, according to the Pytliagorean transmigration
of souls, left his former body of an enlightened humanist and
entered that of an obscurantist?

In this Obelisk Eck had also pointed out that if, God does
not hear the prayers for the dead, and the people become con-
vinced of this, there will be an end of masses for the dead and
of other usages. Luther's thesis, he held, must lead to such
vicious conclusions.

Luther replies that he cannot regard him as a theologian who
denies that the hearing of prayers is a sovereign privilege of
God, for the exercise of which he is not under anybody's control
and answerable to no one. If Eck teaches the people otherwise,
he is the worst destroyer of the Church that has so far arisen.
But Luther declines the vicious character of his theses ; if there is
anything vicious or poisonous in them, Eck has put that into
the theses. Luther had merely cast up the query: Since prayers
for the dead are not an exercise of that power, by which sins are
remitted or retained, can they avail anything? For a prayer
does not effect what the person offering it desires, but what He to
whom it is addressed is willing to grant. Instead of helping to
light up this difficulty, Eck has imputed a mean motive to Luther.
14. Obellsk. — Against Luther's 29th thesis Eck had cited
Job 19,21: "Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, ye my
friends; for the hand of God hath touched me." He claimed
that in this passage we hear the cry of souls in purgatory who
are yearning for reunion with God, but cannot attain it as long -
as their fines remain unpaid.

Luther replies ironically that he had often read the text in
Job, but not until this holy Doctor Eck had explained it, had
he had any idea that it contained the wail of souls in purgatory.
He asks Eck to tell how he knows that the souls are yearning
for reunion with God. If they are Christian souls, they know
that they must submit to God's pleasure, and abide the times
and seasons of His help. If they are in purgatory by God's will,
they will not murmur and wail.

Eck had related th? legend of Severinus,- who appeared to his
uncle and had asked him to have the priest pray for him in order
that he might be purified and enabled to leave purgatory. Luther
had demolished belief in this goodly legend by his thesis.

Luther suspends his judgment on the credibility of the legend,
but says it has little value with him, as long as Scripture does
not support the claim which this story is to bolster up.

Eck had also cited the words of Augustine: "0 Lord, burn

here, cut here, in order that Thou mayest spare me in eternity."

Luther replies: As if I had denied anybody the right to pray

for a cessation of punishment! But what if some one should

230 III- SUMMAKY OF OBELISKS AND ASTERISKS.

desire the very punishments which another wishes to turn away
from him by his prayer?

15. Obelisk. — Against Luther's 30th and 31st thesis Eck
had declared that a person may perform a penance which the
priest has imposed on him, and may secure a merit by the per-
formance, while living in a mortal sin.

Luther replies that a person living in a mortal sin cannot pray
the Lord's Prayer without calling the wrath of God down upon
himself. Instead of achieving something meritorious by reciting
so many Paternosters, such a person only increases his guilt.
Such a penitent may satisfy the Church by obeying the order of
his confessor, but he does not satisfy God. Besides, penances
should not be imposed when the confessor is sure in advance that
the person cannot execute them; and on the dead no penances at
all can be imposed; for they are not reached any more by the
arm of a priest.

16. Obelisk. — In his 34th thesis Luther had declared that
indulgences at best remove church-fines imposed by men. Eck
objected that if this were so, the absolving priest could not say:
"If there is anything deficient in the fine I have imposed, may the
bitter suffering of Christ supply the defect," but would have to
say: "May the Pope supply the defect"; moreover, the confessor
would not be Christ's, but the Pope's representative.

Luther points out that he has answered this charge before,
and regrets that the precious sufl;ering of Christ should be used
in the Sacrament of Penance to patch up defective penances of
parishioners, when it was offered to God as an atoning sacrifice
for all sins. He also points out that as Eck represents the act
of absolution, there is really no forgiveness of sins at all, but
a swapping of merits for demerits, a commercial transaction.

17. Obelisk. — In his 36th thesis Luther had said that
a person who truly repents has forgiveness of sins and needs
no indulgence. Eck had argued: , Suppose a dying person; he is
truly penitent and receives the sacrament and the forgiveness of
sins. If he were not penitent, the priest could not minister to him.
Still this person does not receive a remission of his punishment;
for if^he did, he would not have to go to purgatory.

Luther replies that Eck has no conception what true repents^nce
is, and is arguing all the time as if the point which he ought to
prove is already established.

18. Obelisk. — In his 37th thesis Luther had rejected indul-
gences as unnecessary for members, of the holy Christian Church,
the communion of saints; for in this communion every member
possesses all spiritual blessings that he needs. Eck admitted
that this was a good thesis, but charged that Luther failed to

III. SrilMARY OF OBELISKS A\D ASTEKISKS. 231

distinguish between various kinds of communion. There were, he
said, also fraternities within the Church, and these Luther
seemed to reject, as tlie Hussites had done. Accordingly, he
claimed that his thesis was scattering Bohemian poison. .

Luther repels the malicious insinuation in Eck's criticism,
and complains bitterly of the evident purpose of Eck to cry him
down as a heretic, and then reiterates his claim that fellowship
with the invisible Church secures every spiritual privilege to
a believer, and this fellowship is to be desired above fellowship
in any sodality or fraternity within the visible Church, which
in most eases serve quite unnecessary purposes.

19. Obelisk. — Eck denied what Luther had asserted in his
39th thesis : that it is difficult even for the greatest theologian
to preach indulgence and repentance at the same time. Eck
claimed that this is not difficult at all, because by repentance
guilt is removed, but by indulgences the punishment of guilt
is canceled.

Luther replied that this would be true if scholastic teaching
regarding indulgences were true, and reminds Eck again that he
is taking for granted what he is to prove.

■20. Obelisk. — In his 42d thesis Luther had declared that
it could not be the Pope's intention to pronounce the purchase
of an indulgence better than practising charity. Eck had
remarked that this would be true if Luther were speaking of
earning a merit, but not if he meant to reject satisfactions to
be rendered for sin.

Luther denies again that there are two kinds of punishment
for sin, one which God, and the other which the Church imposes.
He charges Eck with begging the question at this point, as, in
fact, he has been doing throughout his Obelisks. Next, he
makes Eck's argument defeat itself. Eck had claimed that the
purchase of an indulgence constituted no merit; it was merely
the rendering of a satisfaction. Luther argues that "all things
must work together for good to them that love God," hence also
the indulgence, if it is worth anything at all. The scholastics,.
he reminds Eck, had acknowledged that indulgences secure to the
purchaser a merit. Xow, then, if rendering satisfaction for sin
removes a punishment, and at the same time secures a merit,
it is better than an indulgence. Again, if indulgences keep men
from rendering satisfaction, they deprive man of a benefit he
would secure if he were not tempted with an indulgence. Hence
indulgences are harmful.

21. Obelisk. — This criticism, directed against Luther's 43d
thesis, merely repeats the former objection, and is answered by
Luther as before.

232 III- SUMMAEr OF OBELISKS AND ASTERISKS.

22. Obelisk. — Luther liad declared it a wicked procedure for
a person to purchase an indulgence rather than help a suffering
neighbor. Eck admitted that the neighbor must be helped, how-
ever, when he is in extreme need. For this interpretation of the
royal law of love Luther holds Eck up as a, mercenary and
unloving character.

Eck had, moreover, remarked that he might offer further
criticism on these theses which seemed to him to smell after
Bohemia, but he would only point out that Luther had offended
against the respect due the Pope by criticizing a practise which
the Pope had endorsed.

Luther questions whether Eck is really representing the
intention of the Pope correctly; if he is, it is a shame that
God's law of charity should be virtually abrogated to give place
to the ordinances of men. But he assumes that Eck is merely
currying favor with the Curia and flattering the Pope as so
many do.

23. — 31. Obelisk. — In these annotations Luther's 58th, 60th,
62d, 67th, 69th, 77th, 81st, 82d, and 92d theses are criticized. But
the exceptions are mere repetitions and baseless cavil, of which
Luther says at the conclusion of his rejoinders : "I am ashamed
of such silly and stupid prattle." 215)

215) XVIII, 537—589.

INDEX.

Abelard, 12.

Absolution, priestly, 184 — 6.
Adelmann, Bernard, 8. 19. 25.
Adolph, Bishop of Merseburg,

34.56. 113.
Albert, Archbishop, 47. 83.
Amsdorf. 1. 116. 202.
Anhalt, Duke of, 44.
Anselm of Canterbury, 12.
Antichrist, 72. 105.
Appeal from Pope to Pope, 43.
Aquinas, 48 f .
Aristotle, 13. 48. 105.
Asterisks, 20. 24. 221.
Auerbach, Dr., 196.
Augsburg, 42.
Augustinians, 194.

Barnim, Duke, 116. 124. 128.

195.
Baumgaertner, 162.
Bayne, 73.

Bernard of Clairvaux, 12.
Bernhardi, Bartholoinew, 36.
Biel, 14.

Bohemians, 27. 110. 121.
Bologna, 63.
Burckhardt, Francis, 194.

Cajetan, 42 — 4. 49.

Capito, 42.

Carlstadt, character of, 31 ff.;
theses against Eck, 95; car-
toon, 102; arrival at Leipzig,
115; debate with Eck, 116—
129. 188 — 192; estimate of,
as a debater, 127 — 129. Let-
ters : to Spalatin, 40. 41 ; to
Eck, 40. 96 ff.; to Elector
Frederic, 204.

Charles V, election of, 192. 208.

Church, Luther's view of, 106.

Clajus, Nieasius, 34.

Constanz, 93. 166.

Cum postquam. Bull, 55.

Decretals, 70. 105.

Disputations : Bologna, 7 ; Vi-
enna, 7f. ; Wittenberg, 15 f.
34; Heidelberg, 22.

Dominicans, 64. 158 f. 194.

Dresden, 48.

Dungersheim; see Ochsenfart.

Eck, early life, 2ff.; Obelisks,
19 f. ; Monomachy, 36. 41.
46; visits Luther, 43. 119;
schedula, 58. 87 ; thirteenth
thesis, 87; arrives at Leip-
zig, 114; debates vpith Carl-
stadt, 116—129. 188—192;
debates with Luther, 131 —
157. 164 — 186; estimate of,
as a debater, 127. 157. 172.
181. 183; the original coun-
ter-reformer, 206 ; Catholic
estimate of, 206 ; final esti-
mate of, 208. Letters: to
Carlstadt, 23.38; to Goede
and Schlamau, 39 ; to Duke
George, 46; to Luther, 66.
77 ; to University of Leip-
zig, 114: to Gaspar and
Polling, 88 ; to Hauen and
Burckhardt, 194; to Elector
Frederic, 198; to Hoog-
straten, 200.

Egranus, 20. 64.

Emser, 48. 115. 116. 129.

Epistolae obs. vir., 110 f.

Erasmus, 8. 24. 86. 92.

Erfurt, 15. 44. 45. 194.

Extravagances, papal, 65.

Eyb, Gabriel von, 18. 47.

Fischer, canon, 70.
Florentines, 70.
Franciscans, 194.
Frankfort on Oder, 23.
Frederic, Elector, 44. 47. 58. 82.
86. 174. 198.

234

Free will, 87. 96. 121—4. 125—7.

188—92.
Froeschel, 115. 130. 158.
Fuggerism, 7.

Caspar, Abbot, 88.

George, Duke, 45.48.50.53.75.

78. 80. 112. 165. 168. 173.
Gibbons, Cardinal, 174.
Goede, Henning, 39.
Greek Church, 136. 141. 155.

167.
Grievances, German, 71.
Grisar, 25. 208.
Gruenenberg, Joh. 40.
Gucnther, Francis, 15.

Hales, Alex., 14.
Hauen, George, 194.
Hausrath, 17. 29. 61. 209.
Heidelberg, 21. 22. 33. 34. 218.
Henning, Matth., 55.
Herbipolis, 130.
Hoogstraten, 187. 200.
Hutteu, 209. 211.

Indulgences, 32. 43. 65. 178—81.

Italy, 72.

Jueterbogk, 86.

Judges of debate, 117. 201.

Kalkoflf, 49.

Keys, power of, 107, 125.
Kingdom of heaven, 41.
Klein, Kilian, 10.
Kolde, 29. 208.

Landshut, 63.

Lang, Joh., 15. 24. 48. 69. 81.

109. 116.
Lange, Joh., 193.
Leipzig, 44. 46. 51. 55. 57. 110.
Leo X to Luther, 83.
Link, 20. 50. 72.
Loescher, 65.
Lombard, Peter, 13.
Lotther, 65.
Loughlin, 119.

Luther, about Eck, 20. 37 ; at
Augsburg, 42. 71; appeal
from Pope to Pope, 43;
preaches at Dresden, 49 ; 12
theses against Eck, 64; his
"insincerity," 73 ; against
Eck's 13th thesis, 87. 104;
open letter against Eck, 91;
downhearted, 109; arrives at
Leipzig, 115; preaches at
Leipzig, 124; conduct at
Leipzig, 130; debates with
Eck, 131—157. 164—186;
estimate of, as a debater, 172.
178.181.183; leaves Leipzig,
186; secular view of his
work, 210. Letters: to Eck,
10. 22. 36. 45. 51. 66. 78; to
Scheurl, 11.37.69; to Lang,
15. 69. 81. 109; to Link, 20.
51.72; to Egranus, 20.37;
to Carlstadt, 44. 61; to
Elector Frederic, 44. 58. 82.
204; to Spalatin, 45.48.51.
65.70.71.72.80.85. 104. 161;
to Staupitz, 69.71.161; to
Pirckheimer, 70 ; to Melanch-
thon, 72; to Tetzel, 162; to
Duke George, 77.79.80; to
Miltitz, 85; to Hoogstraten,
187.

Maximilian, Emperor, 68. 84.

McGiflfert, 28.

Melanchthon, 3. 32. 43. 104. 116.

124. 196. 201.
Metzler, Dr., 130.
Miltitz, 58. 68. 84. 159.
Miritsch, Michael, 48.
Mosellanus, 19. 120.

Nicea, Council of, 108.
Notaries of debate, 98. 117.
Nuetzel, 18.

Obelisks, 19. 24. 46. 221.
Occam, 14.

Ochsenfart, Dr., 20. 48. 86. 106.
Oecolampadius, 196.

235

Paris, University of, 130.
Paulinians at Leipzig, 130.
Penitence, penance, repentance,

41. 58, 64. 95. 181—4. 184—7.
Pflug, Caesar, 54. 57. 193. 200.
Pircklieimer, 8. 25. 70.
Pistoris, Dr. 120.
Pleissenbiirg, 113.
Polling, Joh., 88.
Prierias, 51.
Primacy of Pope, 60. 65. 70. 93.

100. 106. 131—53. 164^72.

200.
Purgatory, 59. 64. 174 — 8.

Eabe, 48. 81.
Rhenanus, Beat., 63.

St. Victor, Hugo and Robert, 12.
Satisfactions for sins, 184 — 6.
Scheurl, 1. 9. 11. 17. 69.
Scblamau, Laur., 39.
Scbolasticism, 11.213.218.
Scotus, 14.
Seidemann, 47. 111.
Semipelagianism, 65.
Sententiarii, 13.
Serralonga, Urban von, 71.
Sickingen, Francis von, 209.
Silvester, Pope, 60.
Sin, 95.
Smith, Preserved, 32. 47. 194 ff.

Spalatin, 34. 40. 41. 45. 48. 50.

65. 70. 71. 80. 85. 104. 161.

196.
Spengler, Lazarus, 211.
Spirit and letter, Augustine on,

41.
Staupitz, 69.71. 161.
Summenhardt, Dr., 3. 7.

Tetzel, 84. 157—63.

Theology, medieval, 11; at Wit-
tenberg, 16.

Theses, Ninety-five, 17. 44. 60.

Treasure of Church, 65.

Truchsess, Erhard von, 10. 18.

Turks, Tax for war on, 70. 72.
209.

Unigenitus, Bull, 30. 42.

Vedder, 26. 68. 74. 101.
Vienna, University of, 7. 53. 63.
98.

War, Luther on, 73.
Weiasestaedt, Prof., 48.
Wertheim, Dietrich von, 56.
Wiedemann, 9. 44.
Wittenberg, University of, 10.

15.36.40.50.213.
Wortwein, Joh., 40.

Zasius, Dr., 4. 8.
Zwingli, 63.